An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby's - <AUTHOR> https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-artwork-banksy-shredded-selling-13-million-sothebys <comment><USER2> Part of me feels like this stunt is clever because the nature of the performance improves the value of the work. So it's self-destructive in the technical sense of the term but it was designed in such a way to essentially transform the piece. While shocking in the moment, as the pictures of the scene show, the work has three separate qualities: the original significance of the piece, the new meaning it attains after partial shredding, and its role in the historical documentation of the scene that played out. A bunch of moneyed folk at an auction recoiling in horror - either because of the money they initially thought was wasted, or more charitably because they genuinely cared about the work. What would your own assumption there tell you?

However, in my mind I also imagined something entirely different. What would it say for a similar work of art to self destruct at a very glacial pace, and the only way to prevent degradation was to pay attention to it? What would it say about the nature of art and wealth if the owner did not notice the piece had destroyed itself until it was too late, presumably because they bought it and left it in storage or on a wall they never looked at? This is what plenty of art will already do over the course of centuries, without maintenance or restoration, so I'm thinking about something more accelerated and deliberate.

And on an extra level, I have started to wonder how such a piece could be represented through programming. The website that rots, pixel by pixel, when it isn't viewed; or the application that subtly corrupts itself over time.

<comment><USER3> > And on an extra level, I have started to wonder how such a piece could be > represented through programming. The website that rots, pixel by pixel, when > it isn't viewed; or the application that subtly corrupts itself over time.

I suppose that's also already true today. Unmaintained software rots; the OS moves on and the software no longer runs. DRMed software has its servers shut down. Online games get shut down. Etc. The most loved software typically has enough interested hackers to keep it alive; releasing bug fixes decades later, defeating DRM, emulating server software to keep old online games alive, etc. But if no one cared about a piece of software, it won't be long before it "rots" and becomes unrunnable in the future.

Somewhat related, your comment reminded me about a piece of online performance art. It was a website with an animation of a dying astronaut, a countdown, and a clickable button. If the button wasn't clicked within a certain amount of time, to reset the countdown, the astronaut would die. Forever. As long as someone, somewhere, on the internet clicked that button, the astronaut would keep on living.

Things were touch and go when the website first went online. Not a lot of visitors meant not a lot of people to click the button and keep him alive. But it went viral, and his life was nearly assured.

I believe in the end a server glitch or something ruined it; the countdown ran out and the astronaut died. And that was it. There was no reset after that. For a brief flicker in time that virtual life burned dimly enough to light up the internet. Now he's merely a buried artifact of internet history.

The transience of the act is what gave it value. If something never dies, if it can never be lost, what value does it hold?

At the end of the film Blade Runner, the "Tears in Rain" speech. I always felt like he was saying he finally found value in his life. Androids, living only for a brief few years, didn't find much value in their lives. But he realized he had seen and done things that nobody else in the world had. And when he dies, those things will be lost forever, like tears in the rain. It seems pointless. But that loss is what gives value to his life. He isn't just another android. He's something priceless.

<comment><USER4> [https://codepen.io/leemartin/pen/pxNvod](https://codepen.io/leemartin/pen/pxNvod)

<comment><USER5> Nice.

One issue: the overlay parts are positioned using onload JS, and do not reposition on resize.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a well orchestrated publicity stunt. A reputed auction house like Sotheby's would never put an item up before thoroughly checking and documenting it.

Post this stunt, the artwork will now be valued much higher than what it sold for at this auction. Banksy has been known for such ingenious and clever marketing stunts.

<comment><USER7> Please tell me which other ingenious and clever marketing stunts Banksy, the anti-capitalist artist who refuses to allow his work or even prints (with rare exceptions) to be sold is known for?

<comment><USER8> For an "anti-capitalist", he sure has a lot of books for sale on Amazon.

<comment><USER9> This is my least favorite criticism ever.

"Like, hey man, if you're complaining that the system is totally unfair and forces most people powerlessly into a narrow set of compromised choices, why are you making one of those choices?"

When I worked with Tom Morello he used to get it all the time too. It's a bogus argument. There's no requirement that one leave the system they are in prior to expressing fundamental doubts about that system.

<comment><USER10> Tom Morello has been happy to use his fame and status to try and get his way with things.

[https://www.facebook.com/The5PointCafe/posts/101526824416292...](https://www.facebook.com/The5PointCafe/posts/10152682441629277)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> crooked-v > Banksy's iconic Girl With Balloon (2006) attracted feverish bidding in the > room and on the phones, racing past its high estimate of £300,000 to hammer > at £860,000, or just over £1 million ($1.3 million with fees). As the gavel > slammed, a siren rang out through the salesroom and everyone stood stunned > as the Banksy canvas slid through the frame that it was contained in and > emerged underneath—but shredded.

I'm impressed by whatever engineering went into the power source for that shredder lasting since 2006 while still being remotely triggerable with perfect timing.

<comment><USER11> The implication is that the frame was a recent addition and that Banksy or an accomplice was in the room to trigger the shredder at the right time

<comment><USER11> Having thought about it a bit, a shredder is a complicated and unreliable machine for a stunt like this. I reckon there was a roller hidden in the frame with (half) a pre-shredded painting on it. The roller then rolls in the main painting while dispensing the shredded version. Much simpler, and easier to test.

<comment><USER12> That's why it stuck half way, most likely. Shredders are unreliable but I wouldn't call them complicated. Small ones are expense and it only had to work once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not referring to this specific exhibit but other pieces by a similar artist. Thousands of people can create this kind of paintings for cheap. That it still sells for more than what many people can make in a decade or a career means a stratospheric concentration of wealth in society or a bubble in the commercial art world.

If there is real scarcity because of climate change or other widespread disaster, how much can a piece of this 'quality' be sold for? A loaf of bread, or less?

That millions of children still starve but a piece of simplistic art is worth more than the value of food a whole village consumes in a decade is a sorry effect of the financial system we use or the way our society assigns 'coolness' score to people and activity.

<comment><USER14> >If there is real scarcity because of climate change or other widespread disaster, how much can a piece of this 'quality' be sold for? A loaf of bread, or less?

First, if it's just from climate change, it will be gradual increase in scarcity and all kinds of methods of growing food become viable as the price of bread increases. So unless climate change actually makes Banksy undesirable, it will still be worth more loaves of bread than one person could eat in a lifetime.

Second, if it's an acute wide-spread disaster, the only thing that becomes relevant is food/water/shelter /weapons/first-aid. Not only would a Banksy be worthless, but so would the world's biggest diamond as well as the cure for cancer.

So it's a meaningless comparison just based on the fact that you don't like rich people out-bidding each other over art (and subsequently supporting artists).

Once you start down the road of being dictator of spending on expensive things that aren't solving starvation, all kinds of things like space exploration, the development of the internet, etc all become "sorry effects". Guess how many villages could be fed on the budget of the Apollo program.

<comment><USER13> The difference is the number of people a product or a project will likely help times the 'utility' each person receive.

> Once you start down the road of being dictotoe of spending on expensive > things that aren't solving starvation, all kinds of things like space > exploration, the development of the internet, etc all become "sorry > effects". Guess how many villages could be fed on the budget of the Apollo > program.

I do not advocate dictating spending but propose designing a better incentive system for rich people to spend money on useful things. See my reply to another comment down below.

What are 'useful' things?

Your examples here have good probabilities of turning into 'utility' for the masses. Cure of cancer (obvious), Apollo program (many scientific advances), ...

Bidding up prestige and coolness is a zero sum game and only increases a small bit of satisfaction of a few rich people.

It is about valuing the needs of the rich and the masses more equitably.

<comment><USER15> That money doesn't just vanish though. It's a wealth transfer from Adam to Bernice. Adam's bank balance drops from £100m to £99m, Bernice's goes from £100m to £101m.

If that transfer didn't happen, then both bank balances would remain at £100m. Nothing is lost or gained, it's irrelevant (Although in Banksy's case the original first sale often involves a transfer of wealth from Adam and Bernice to a random person)

There's nothing inherently good or bad about rich people playing money games with each others assets, it's not the same as Adam paying £10m to destroy a town and gain £20m in profit from exploiting the resources, or indeed divert tens of thousands of high-skilled effort per month into something like the Apollo program.

<comment><USER16> The transaction costs are bad, which may or may not be substantial.

<comment><USER15> Any transaction costs go to paying the auction house for things like catering, electricity, security, rent etc. No worse than a bunch of rich people spending money at a restaurant.

There's an argument that auction houses aren't paying their way for the services they use (especially in expensive areas), and other functions occupying that space could be better for society. A land value tax would solve that. I'm not aware that auction houses rely on other things like copyright or patents that can stifle economic activity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Some photos of the shredded art: [https://hyperallergic.com/464419/1-3m-banksy-artwork-self- de...](https://hyperallergic.com/464419/1-3m-banksy-artwork-self-destructs-at- auction/) ; [https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/sotheby-s-banksy-ed- as-...](https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/sotheby-s-banksy-ed-as-painting- self-destructs-live-at-auction) ; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c)

<comment><AUTHOR> It stopped half way, to me it is more 'art' than before.

<comment><USER11> Yeah whoever bought that has probably made a profit already, its a lot more interesting now.

<comment><USER18> whoever bought it also payed the same exact price as Banksy's all-time auction record set 10 years ago, down to the pound.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sadly what happened to a Banksy in Detroit maybe gave him the idea. An artist group 'extricated' the work from the ruins of the Packard auto plant. The new owner of the building who was planning to use the Banksy as a centerpiece for a retail center was not pleased. They promised to not sell it, then they did.

[http://beltmag.com/the-fight-over-graffiti-banksy-in- detroit...](http://beltmag.com/the-fight-over-graffiti-banksy-in-detroit/)

<comment><USER20> In Germany, there is a second part of copyright law. The actual copyright can be sold as usual, but the Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht (creator's personal right) cannot. It gives the creator the right to forbid public presentations of his work that misrepresent his artistic vision.

The architect of Berlin Main Station (Norman Foster, if I'm not mistaken) used this law to (successfully) sue Deutsche Bahn (the German national railway company) for reparations when they changed the plans and used a cheaper ceiling construction than he designed.

<comment><USER21> Wasn't it Marc & Gerkan?

<comment><USER20> You're right, the architect in question was Meinhard von Gerkan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The KLF did it better.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid)

<comment><USER23> What a depressing story. Banksy stunt is uplifting, that story really made me sad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> As a magic aficionado my bet is that the picture was rolled into the frame and a pre torn version popped out the bottom. Like the old dollar bill trick. Still impressive.

<comment><USER25> I highly doubt it. I don't think Banksey is worried about a print being damaged.

<comment><USER26> From the video that Banksy posted, the shredding mechanism just doesn't make any sense. X-acto blades at that angle wouldn't shred in the way it come out of the frame. There's clearly something else happening here.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england- bristol-45770028](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-45770028)

<comment><USER27> Absolutely. It would not work. See the other comment suggesting the shredded version was stored in the frame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is just so impressive to me. That this was set in motion in 2006 with the engineering and frame design and executed perfectly 12 years later is just so magnificent I'm almost tearing up.

The way the it was shredded and stopping halfway allows the piece to still be hung, and in my mind, this massively increases the notoriety and value of the piece.

To prank Sotheby's like this at the moment that the auctioneers gavel falls, is truly epic. Truly a great and well executed piece of performance art. I want video!

<comment><USER29> > _Balloon Girl is a 2002 mural by graffiti artist Banksy depicting a young > girl letting go of a red heart-shaped balloon._

It's a 2006 copy of a 2002 mural[0]. There is no mention of where the copy originated from though, nor any indication that the _frame_ was part of the 2006 piece.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl)

<comment><USER10> [http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/contempo...](http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/contemporary- art-evening-auction-l18024/lot.67.html)

Sotheby's posts lot details on their site for all auctions. The provenance on this one is quite direct. Banksy -> "Current Owner" -> Whoever won the auction

Banksy himself made the frame.

However, rumor that I've seen among the art world is that Banksy was the "Current Owner" as well as the bidder. The piece sold for the exact same amount (to the pound) as his previous record Sotheby's auction. People are also not buying that Sotheby's wasn't in on it - wooden frames like this have to be verified to be free of pests like termites, etc., which the lot details report was done. It seems unlikely that in verifying the frame to be pest free they would have missed a motorized shredder in it. Especially since the shredded pieces had to go out somewhere...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm honestly struck by how _cheap_ this piece was sold for. Banksy is a household name unlike most contemporary artists. Pieces by Jeff Koons have sold for 50 million but Banksy struggles to cross the 1 million mark? I'm surprised that there are no tech millionaires or Wall Street Titans buying up the pieces.

<comment><USER31> Jeff Koons Art ist actually pretty good, I can't say the same of Banksky. The value of Art is sometimes inversely related to how popular it is, because it then can be no longer used to signal that you "get" it.

<comment><USER32> To each their own. I google-imaged Jeff Koons, and I didn't find any appealing to look at or would want around my house (except maybe giant flower puppy :P)

<comment><USER31> Well you have to see the pieces in person, I think some of them look fantastic if you already own a completely ridiculous mansion or a semi-public space like a luxury resort in Dubai or something. They are definitely cool to look at in a museum context, I saw them at the Centre Pompidou two years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Big art has been hijacked by big money. Art as an investment vehicle, something to preen yourself with, show others you are elite.

This shows the hypocrisy. Unfortunately it will not change anything. The piece has just become more valuable, I predict.

Go Banksy. Art for the masses.

<comment><USER34> In the art world, Banksy is seen largely as trite and is known to attract new and dumb money. If you've seen his film "Exit Through The Gift Shop", Mr. Brainwash, the aspiring artist he portrays, is quite similar to how anyone who knows or cares a little about art sees Banksy himself.

It isn't just "big money" saying this - ask any cool (poor) artists or curators if they like Banksy and you'll be laughed out of the room. He's the Nickelback of contemporary art. It's not because of his message - lots of other artists make biting, hilarious attacks on global capitalism and consumer culture, if that's what you're into.

Also, as others in this thread have pointed out, practices like this shredding don't actually devalue the piece, and may in fact increase it's value. The shredding is an empty gesture signifying the rejection of a culture that the piece is very much a part of. If a piece is just an investment vehicle, what effect does humiliating the owner of the piece have on the piece's function as an investment vehicle, if it does not lower the value? They (allegedly) own the art only for it's value, so how does this strike back at them?

If you want to look getting money out of art, you might start by looking at the early performance art tradition and what it achieved in terms of decommodification. Pay special attention to the amount of lying and inconsistent storytelling. Ask yourself whether "Exit Through The Gift Shop" (grossed 3MM in USA box office and set Banksy on the track to these $1mm sales) achieves any of the same decommodification.

<comment><USER35> The stunts are the art.

I am an artist myself. I don't see Banksy as being an anti-capitalist or anti- consumer culture artist. I see that aspect of his performance as a persona, exactly like Mr. Brainwash is, and that he uses that persona as background for his real art, which are the stunts he pulls off to delight wealthy patrons.

I also don't believe he is trying (ineffectively) to rebel against the commodification of art; he's knowledgeable and complicit in it, much like Damien Hirst.

A case for my argument is that he (deliberately) delighted the art auction audience with his stunt (as opposed to insulted); the art work was only half- shredded, allowing it to still be hung; knowing action houses, they had thoroughly inspected the art work before putting it up for auctioning, and were complicit with Banksy's stunt, and this much is evident in their good- natured choice of words for the press; the art work's value has only increased, as has his reputation as a (complicit and well-wishing) prankster.

In short, Banksy has taken the post-modernist concept of an artist with a persona that superficially and ineffectively rebels against capitalism while the real artist is actively, knowingly and profitably complicit with capitalism... Banksy has taken it to a sublime level, and that's why we in the art world who are in on the joke (and know who is really being laughed at: the public who believe in his flimsy anti-capitalist persona) love him as one of us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Great performance art. I've always thought about ridiculously expensive art self-destructing at point of sale, which is often auctions. I don't think art should be that inaccessible and I'm not asserting a specific threshold is but beyond a certain pricing level, art does become ridiculous. It would be interesting to see this incident repeat itself but with complete destruction - would the auctioneers argue that ashes or molten remains are still art?

<comment><USER37> Two possibilities, and by god I hope my first is right:

It's a super clever two-stage prank. At auction the picture is supposed to shred but it stops half way. Did it break? Was that the intention? Who knows! That's the mystery behind it. Now it's more than just a simple painting, it's a performance piece and worth significantly more! The half shredded portrait is hung up somewhere and weeks or months from now the shredder comes back to life for the finale of complete destruction. "Going... Going... Gone" became "Going up up and away!" Ha! Take that Banksy! Then full circle back to gone, Banksy has the last laugh. Bonus points if it does this in the middle of the night and the owner is greeted by a pile of shreds on the floor the following morning.

Second and more boring possibility: the shredder was supposed to fully destroy the picture at auction but unfortunately failed. I believe Banksy intended the piece to fully self destruct in full view of the auction house as a big "fuck you" to art hoarding and monetizing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if legally the buyer can retract the buy? Although I'm sure it's worth more with that.

Funny how Banksy, who was anti commercial things before as a street artist, now is obviously very torn being selling out and not. He is still selling out with this sale, but couldn't stop himself from trolling the buyer.

I feel like I'd feel in a similar way - hard not to sell when so much money is in play.

<comment><USER39> It's not trolling, the work was a performance piece.

<comment><USER40> > It's not trolling, the work was a performance piece.

If the buyer wasn't aware of this prior to buying it then technically Banksy ruined the buyers art, or the buy can back out because he's not getting what he paid for.

<comment><AUTHOR> But the buyer would be stupid to do so. Also, transformation to the point of self-destruction is an accepted part of art, at least since Joseph Beuys' "Fettecke".

<comment><USER40> What if the buyer just loved the piece of art prior and now hates it? I liked the before. The new "art" to me is crap. Art is subjective right? Not all art is purchased for its value. But the emotional connection one has for it. And such.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you don't like it you can either return it and maybe get your money back, or sue, or whatever, or try selling it for much more. I am not even sure an assurance would cover this case, because it is obviously still there, and worth more, presumably.

<comment><USER38> right. But if the buyer bought the piece because they just want to see it in their home, and now don't like anymore, then it is ruined for them, even if they can sell it for more money :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> There probably was no shredding at the auction - there are likely two images in the frame, one pre-shredded to a certain point. Look at the color of the "shredded" print. It's not the same - it's darker, probably didn't age as well 'cause it was cheaper paper. Not to mention that using two images is vastly simpler mechanically and economically than actually shredding it. You just have to roll up half of one image while rolling out half of another (shredded) image. Making a shredding noise is a lot simpler than shredding (and fits in a smaller frame.) There are so many magic tricks that exploit our expectation in just this way (such as sawing a lady in half.)

Of course, it's not in Banksy's interest to reveal the trick immediately. Let the publicity build.

<comment><USER42> The change in color likely has to do with the lighting. When it's removed from the wall you can see the square of light placed on the frame. [https://youtu.be/5-RFj1Slcws?t=22](https://youtu.be/5-RFj1Slcws?t=22)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Some more background on the iconic image: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl)

</comment><comment><USER44> Reminds me of this classic Ai Weiwei photo where he just destroys a Han Dynasty vase for no good reason. I honestly love this photo. It really speaks to the breaking of tradition and not being bound to the past.

[https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp- content/uploads/2017...](https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/art-ai-weiwei-dropping-a-han-dynasty- urn-X.2016.10601.jpg?w=870)

</comment><comment><USER45> Strip shredding implies a desire not to destroy the piece, but instead, to recognisably transform it.

</comment><comment><USER46> Art made specifically to get media attention and keep the Banksy brand alive. A bit shallow, though.

</comment><comment><USER47> I wonder why nobody mentioned Agrippa (A Book of the Dead) by William Gibson. It was a poem on floppy disc that was programmed to encrypt itself after a single use.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(A_Book_of_the_Dead)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_\(A_Book_of_the_Dead\))

<comment><USER48> That was my first thought too. I remember the attention it got. And of course it was not so ephemeral, as people ensured the poem was captured, since in that case people knew it advance it would self-destruct.

It's an interesting poem, and one that probably was read far more because it was published the way it did than if it had been published the normal way. While I enjoyed poetry, it is the first and only time I've rushed to read a newly published lyrical work.

It's beautifully constructed in that it is about the distinction between memory and reproduction, and where the poem represents a reproduction of Gibsons own memories, the self-destruction served to make the book itself an event and creation of memories about the reproduction of the poem even in many cases in people who never got around to reading it, but just read about it.

It's also interesting because one of Gibsons own comments about it is about how we tend to remember the past in light of the present, not the way it actually was, and thinking about how I remember the work, I realise I have memories of text fading, but 1) my memories don't match how it was presented, 2) I never saw the original anyway.

I have distinct images of reading it in light blue on darker blue, but I would have read it on my Amiga. Those are not the Workbench colours, and the offline readers I used did not use that colour scheme - it's more likely that I'm confusing it with reading texts shared on floppy on my C64, years before. So our memories of Agrippa are themselves now an example of the theme of the poem itself.

Ironically, it is a cooperative project with Dennis Ashbaugh who designed the book as an art piece, and came up with the concept of the self-destruction, but whose part of the work has remained the lesser known part of the "package" despite (or because) not being the part to self-destruct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I've never understood the art community's love for banksy. It's mind numbing drivel. South Park has far more depth and creativity.

<comment><USER50> Banksy is an artist that mocks the art world. He or she kinda makes fun of it. The art is decent, and its fun (sometimes undervalued in art circles). Banksy said in the forward of one of his book collections : art is controlled by just one group, the museum curators and rails against that.

Who else would set up a pop up shop outside the MET museum in NYC and sell original pieces and then report that they've sold only 6?

[http://gothamist.com/2013/10/13/video_banksy_set_up_a_pop_up...](http://gothamist.com/2013/10/13/video_banksy_set_up_a_pop_up_booth.php)

"The street prank gave Gothamist graffiti guru Jake Dobkin lots to mull over: Who's the joke about here, though? Is it that Banksy's work kind of sucks, from an empirical point, in that no one would buy it unless they knew who it was by? Or is the joke on everyone for not being smart enough to be there and recognize how valuable the stuff on sale was? As with all Banksy, there's kind of an edge to it that makes you feel a little annoyed—like he's having a joke at your expense.

"

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm getting 503s, so here's an IPFS mirror:

[https://www.eternum.io/ipfs/QmTi3JeC9k1zQy9PFS4ZTf5wZDzP7gyY...](https://www.eternum.io/ipfs/QmTi3JeC9k1zQy9PFS4ZTf5wZDzP7gyYNFD3mzmUJNsdAk/)

</comment><comment><USER52> I honestly don't know why anyone at the auction, who was interested in that piece, thought there would be no trick or strings attached, or why Sotheby's didn't suspect anything after investigating Banksy. The wiki excerpt shown by Google says "Banksy is an anonymous England-based street artist, __vandal, political activist __, and film director. " It then goes on to call his works satirical and focused on dark humour.

Anyone willing to spend £1,000,000 on a piece of art by Banksy should know enough about him to imagine that he'd hate auctioning his work to the rich at an elite establishment like Sotheby's.

</comment><comment><USER53> Discovered Banksy many years ago and I have to say: if there is a true artist it's him. Or maybe it's them? Still think it's very plausible that Banksy is a collective.

The creativity and ingenuity just seems too much for a single person.

<comment><USER54> I find the history behind it certanly interesting (and the art is amazing!). There was a documentary and a conspiracy theory too about the whole thing, just a movie, but good to watch IMO. "Art through the gift shop".

<comment><USER55> "exit through the gift shop"

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/)

<comment><USER54> ah right, sorry!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I bet it continues to shred after it being sold for 10 million.

</comment><comment><USER57> Oddly, $1.4m is exactly the amount Bristol libraries are short in their budgets, which Banksy offered to help. If only he had sold the art.

[https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk- news/2018...](https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk- news/2018/jul/04/banksy-offers-to-help-save-bristols-under-threat-libraries)

</comment><comment><USER58> It was only at the moment of shredding that Banksy finished his work.

I won't be surprised to see its estimated value double within a week.

</comment><comment><USER59> Appraisers are saying the instant the artwork was shredded it became more of an artwork and is now worth a lot more.

</comment><comment><USER60> Googling "self destructing art" yields some interesting finds, many centered around the Dada movement.

</comment><comment><USER61> Thanksfully the original Banksy Girl with a balloon is still on some street in Amsterdam, visible to everyone. This frame was just an elaborate prank, as usual, to invalidate the "art market" scheme. From time to time forked Banksys are put on the commercial market. This was wonderful.

</comment><comment><USER62> Plot twist: the buyer can now probably keep the frame + shreds and resell it for several times what they paid.

<comment><USER63> I assume they won't actually have to pay? I'd guess whatever contract their is with the seller also requires that the art is delivered safely to the purchaser.

I wonder what the message is here, or if there is a message beyond the publicity. I guess something about the art having no inherent value...

<comment><USER64> It's now a part of art history, it would be a foolish move on the part of the buyer to not accept it. Banksy has reaffirmed why he's maybe the only contemporary visual artist today who counts as a household name. Although I guess we cuold debate whether he's first and foremost a visual artist, or a performance artist. The audacity of his stunts and trickery far outweigh the merits of his clever visual puns.

<comment><USER65> Walked past one of his works on the upper west side of manhattan. I wouldn't have known it was his except for the plaque put up next to the plastic barrier installed to protect it.

Kind of crazy that the art is likely worth as much as the entire building it's on. Although, this is Manhattan so who knows.

<comment><USER66> His works in the Gaza strip are definitely worth more than the entire buildings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> This reminds me of the novel Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_(Vonnegut_novel)#Pai...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_\(Vonnegut_novel\)#Paintings)

</comment><comment><USER68> A video of Banksy himself showing how he built the shredder:

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BomXijJhArX/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BomXijJhArX/)

</comment><comment><USER69> Just a huge disappointment (not for the investor, of course). It would be cool if it would actually shred itself into small pieces so the investor would lose $1.3M but in fact it just changed its style.

</comment><comment><USER70> From the pictures it appears to only have "half shredded" itself... There is a certain aesthetic to that as well... a full shred may have rendered it worthless. But a half shred...thats art...

</comment><comment><USER71> Good for him! That's one way to keep your work from being locked up in the private estates of the beautiful people. At least it won't be somebody's tax shelter now.

</comment><comment><USER72> "This is now part of art history in its shredded state and we'd estimate Banksy has added at a minimum 50% to its value, possibly as high as being worth £2m plus." - MyArtBroker.com

</comment><comment><USER73> An obvious set up performance. See the artwork - a baloon hijacked by the wind from a girl. Lifes of rich people must be really boring.

</comment><comment><USER74> How much more do you think it's worth now? 2x? 10x? All this media attention is definitely having a huge impact.

</comment><comment><USER75> So, I can't access the site, guessing it's overloaded.

But a few things I've picked up from the discussions.

First off, a product that destroys itself immediately when purchased. I understand the art world now sees it as more valuable. Whatever. Idiots. But what if you bought a car and the moment you drove off the lot the wheels fell off? That's some fraudulent ass shit right there. Now, don't get me wrong. A mil+ for any type of "art" is a stupid in my eyes. But I'm also into collecting antique wood working tools. So, to each their own. But I understand the anger someone would feel for paying a lot for something that is trash. Plus as a seller. As Sotheby's, I'd raise some unholy hell... unless I was in on it to.

The anti-capitalist committed the biggest sin in capitalism for his own greed. He profited from an exchange that inherently does not satisfy a customer's need, even though advertised otherwise. And yes, I say greed. He, or they if it's a group of artists, are part of it as a money making scam.

Famous anti-capitalists are not anti-capitalists. They're always sellin' somethin'. Maybe not today, but at some point, they cash in for their audience, eyeball investment.

Oh well, no one cares because it's the art market. The most prolific way to launder and transfer dirty narco and terrorist money because, no one in the public cares. The old white people market as people like to whine about. That market needs to be regulated more hardcore than the stock market. Maybe that's the point? Damn I hope so, then I'd give them more credit. But most folks ain't that clever.

</comment><comment><USER76> The real piece of art here is the engineering of the frame.

</comment><comment><USER77> The girl is dead. Her hope lives on.

</comment><comment><USER78> Is Banksy a sell out now?

</comment><comment><USER79> Absolutely brilliant!

</comment><comment><USER80> an excellent work of art makes people think something new

</comment><comment><USER81> Looks like the source website shredded itself

<comment><USER82> You might need to disable your adblocker.

<comment><USER81> Nope, it's returning 503

<comment><USER82> Worked for me, so I don't actually know what's going on here.

<comment><USER83> It's consistently returned a 503 since I started checking it a few hours ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> so what, in effect Banksy chose to shred 1.3M$? I understand he has a message etc, just curious if he really sacrificed so much for it

<comment><AUTHOR> Banksy will get his money, but his artwork is now probably worth much more. So it is debatable if he succeeded with his intentions to criticise the commercialisation of art.

<comment><USER85> There is zero chance that he did not anticipate this.</comment></comment></comment>


Our statement on the results of the Jacob Appelbaum investigation - <AUTHOR> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/statement-0 <comment><USER2> This sort of thing really merits a judicial investigation. It's not appropriate to place these issues in the eyes of the public until then, and I've never appreciated these sorts of articles in my feed.

Some will be swayed by the fact that the internal investigation turned up some legitimate claims, but if the judicial system disagrees then this guy's life is already ruined, and I don't think that's appropriate. The whole situation reflects poorly on everyone involved.

<comment><USER3> >This sort of thing really merits a judicial investigation

The victims involved in this have specifically asked this to not happen. I'm sure you can understand why the members of a community like this would have personal or political reasons to avoid a judicial investigation.

<comment><USER2> I don't buy that. This sort of event will ruin Jacob's life. You think there's any chance he'll ever get a job again? I think you have to be held accountable, legally, if you want to bring forward acusations that can do that.

<comment><USER4> My answer to this is very simple: It is a property of a state of law that no one is to be considered guilty unless it can be proved by a court. In this sense Jacob Appelbaum is to be considered innocent.

<comment><USER5> Legally, he is considered innocent. No charges have been brought forward, and no legal investigation is under way.

It is the right of most organizations in most states/countries to exclude people of their choosing. They have verified a couple complaints and decided he was enough like a person they wanted to exclude. Which it sounds like he was doing from his side as well.

So I'd say that legally, he is being considered innocent.

This is like 'I can say whatever I want without the consequences of my peers because of the first amendment.' The right to free speech and the right to be innocent until proven guilty apply to a citizens relationship with the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the blog post:

 _" The investigation also identified two additional people as having engaged in inappropriate conduct, and they are no longer involved with the Tor Project."_

Damn.

This effort feels like the kind of deep introspection that every organization should undertake. Every org has their bad apples. But as of yet, there's no norms for addressing them.

 _" code of conduct"_, etc

Thank you. This is excellent news. These types of innovations in governance will become the norm. Thank you for leading the way.

</comment><comment><USER7> Does this bring to mind for anyone else movements crumbling from the inside due to clever sabotage? Huey Newton come to mind? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#COINTELPRO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#COINTELPRO)

I'm not saying that's what's going on here.

But it comes to mind.

<comment><USER8> > I'm not saying that's what's going on here. But it comes to mind.

Stop with this Fox News bullshit. If you have a theory about what's happening here, own it - enough of these "I'm not saying... " non-accusation accusations.

<comment><USER7> I'm actually not informed enough to make any accusations. But I can say what reading about this brings to mind.

<comment><USER9> Totally unrelated. The Panthers were actually taking charge of their own community to police it because the police would not. They fed the hungry and took care of the poor in their communities because people would not. The FBI then ruined them by selling them illegal guns through Richard Aoki, and arresting the people who bought the guns.

Jake, on the other hand, talked at conferences and took credit for tech work. Then he raped some people. Plus, he's one dood. Sooooooo, no, no similarities at all, actually.

<comment><USER7> There was an active campaign of misinformation by the FBI to turn Panthers against each other and discredit Party members.

It worked too . . .

Again, I'm not arguing that's what's going on here

<comment><USER3> >Again, I'm not arguing that's what's going on here

Then why bring it up in the first place?

<comment><USER10> i think it's relevant to consider if this is a COINTELPRO type operation. and important, given the treatment of what's-his-face, who wound up in the Ecuadorian embassy.

that said, it seems like we can dismiss the likelihood of a COINTELPRO-type operation happening right now. rather, it seems that Jake's a snake... sadly. Sad for the folks at tor who had to put up with it. Sad for all the chumps who are distracted from the importance of Tor, in favor of disputing the validity of claims about sexual harassment (or worse).

maybe Applebaum is a narc?

<comment><USER9> Why would the DOD need a narc inside Tor, when it's the single largest funder of the project?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The people who are the brains behind the project can always fork. An organization that's turned inward and primarily concerns itself with rules, codes of conduct, procedures, and investigations will always lose to an organization full of people who are passionate about the problem and the code.

<comment><USER12> Haha that's funny, imagining this self-aggrandizing asshole forking Tor and then getting anything done.

[EDIT: still I upvoted, because every other top-level comment is bonkers.]

<comment><USER11> The pattern I've seen over and over again is you have a core group of creators who are talented, but prickly or obnoxious in some way. The project creators spend years of their lives building the project and making it successful. Then others come into the project, and use real or imagined personal offenses to boot the creators out of the project. These usurpers don't have talent, but because the project is successful already, the impact of booting the creators doesn't become apparent for a while. The project, however, cut off from its engine, stagnates and dies.

Best example? Apple.

Maybe Appelbaum bucks this trend by not having the talent to balance his flaws. I don't know. But I'm pattern-matching against the phenomenon I described above, and so far, it looks like a perfect match.

<comment><USER12> Appelbaum had a fair number of commits, 2008-2011. [0] There isn't much recently, and overall one doesn't get the impression that he'll be able to transition from his recent evangelist role to that of a hard-charging developer of his own fork.

[0] [https://github.com/torproject/tor/graphs/contributors](https://github.com/torproject/tor/graphs/contributors)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Putting the court of public opinion aside for a moment, I think it's good for a company to hire an outside investigator to get to the truth, but I'm also concerned that when you get right down to it, it's the company that is to be protected. Yes they may get rid of bad employees, yes they may project a transparent investigation and its results, but at the end of the day it doesn't really do much for the people involved. It only serves to protect the company. Out of this I would like to see Tor and other silicon valley companies focus more on protecting the rights of employees, both those harmed, and those accused, until all the evidence is in, and then take steps to remedy the situation for those employees. So many of these investigations, from GitHub and Go Grid, to now Tor, is about protecting the companies and their executives. Only when that changes will things be better.

<comment><USER12> "Tor" is not a company. The Tor Project is an international organization responsible only to its members, not to any investors.</comment></comment>


OpenBSD errata - <AUTHOR> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=144920913324251&w=2 <comment><USER2> LibreSSL seemed to be pulling ahead with two of the OpenSSL vulnerabilities not applicable.

It irks me that OpenSSL would keep a vulnerability from the LibreSSL team since August. I hope people using OpenSSL will begin to switch over now. LibreSSL has shown that it is no going away, and that it approaches security in a far better way.

<comment><USER3> I do wonder what LibreSSL is going to do about 1024-bit root removal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just updated and recompiled everything a few days ago. Bad timing. Kinda sucks that manual patching is a pain a lot of the time, but oh well, dependencies will do that I guess.

</comment><comment><USER5> Seems like the OpenBSD guys are a little bitter. And rightfully so. OpenSSL has a lot of improvement work to do - both with their code base and their collaboration efforts.

</comment><comment><USER6> > We did not merge this because it gave miod@ a bad feeling.

Not even sure what the right reaction to that is. On one hand, good for you for skipping an insecure patch but on the other hand, only a bad feeling? You didn't realize it's a security hole?

<comment><USER7> Neither did the people writing it, or merging it. Security isn't an obvious property of code or there would be no security bugs. You have to rely on heuristics, and in this case the heuristics were right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks like they have a typo in the CVE numbers.

CVE-2015-13XX should be CVE-2015-31XX.

<comment><USER9> Yep, cited correctly in the actual errata though.</comment></comment>


Weird bug in Google chat - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone know why Google randomly adds people you may have emailed/added to a Google+ circle to your chat list without asking you about it? <comment><USER2> It is not a bug as far as I know. However, you can change who shows up in your chat list.

In Google+ go the the chat section and press the little arrow pointing down. Then go to privacy settings and select which Circles you want to show up in your chat.</comment>


The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism (1999) - <AUTHOR> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/cal-par/calorie-paradox1a.shtml <comment><USER2> I think the most important info is in the second chapter: Humans and mountain gorillas (say) do not have the same digestive system. We are not herbivores, and we do not have the capacity to extract nutrients only from raw vegetables and leafs. Instead, our digestive system can be classified either as omnivore or faunavore with adaptation to eating plants. Even the apes who east mostly plants will eat meat and insects if they can.

For that reason, I do not see veganism as something that fits to human nature as such. It may be, however, possible to do this in a healthy manner, and the motivation may instead be that it is better for the environment.

But I think the argument can not be, that we are somehow meant to be vegans.

<comment><USER3> Humans are physically much closer to herbivores than true omnivores and, of course, carnivores. If anything we're opportunistic primates that evolved to take advantage of calories where we found them.

But I'm not sure these arguments are really that relevant to the present. We have radically reshaped nature to suit our needs and that includes everything we eat, both animal and vegetable. These appeals to nature generally ignore the fact that the things we ate over the millennia don't exist now.

<comment><USER2> Hm, the article in the op states the opposite - we are much closer to omnivores than herbivores. Who is right?

<comment><USER4> Well how many herbivores have a set of canine teeth meant for ripping? All homo sapiens do. Most herbivores that have incisors tend to have small ones (deer only have incisors on the bottom and press them against the hard upper palate to rip vegetation). Virtually no herbivore has sharp incisors (compared to a lion or homo sapien). Many herbivores have overdeveloped incisors that are used for defense such as an elephant's tusks

Herbivores tend to use premolars and molars to grind and crush vegetation. Carnivores use sharp incisors to cut food and canines to tear food (like flesh from bones). There is no need for a herbivore to ever have canines. Homo Sapiens have both, but our premolars and molars are less pronounced than herbivores.

It is logical and seems to be scientifically accurate to deduce Homo Sapiens are evolved to be Omnivores.

<comment><USER5> There's at least the Gelada:

"Why These Vegetarian Monkeys Have Sharp Predator Teeth" ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6iYj_EBjY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC6iYj_EBjY))

"Geladas are the only primates that are primarily graminivores and grazers – grass blades make up to 90% of their diet. They eat both the blades and the seeds of grasses. When both blades and seeds are available, geladas prefer the seeds. They eat flowers, rhizomes and roots when available,[12][13] using their hands to dig for the latter two. They consume herbs, small plants, fruits, creepers, bushes and thistles.[12][13] Insects can be eaten, but only rarely and only if they can easily be obtained." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelada#Range_and_ecology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelada#Range_and_ecology))

edit: and hippos

edit: and flying foxes (frugivores)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the "raw" requirement is the real gotcha here.

You can get _plenty_ of calories from rice and beans. For millenia, the bulk of humanity has lived on really plain foods with little meat (though in some places like europe, north africa, and the middle east, quite a bit of cheese).

Extracting nutrients from uncooked foods is a lot less biochemically efficient for our digestive system, though, and it's going to be the rate-limiting step. If you rule out rice, oatmeal, porridges, bread, tofu, etc... you are likely to be in a mode of basically permanent caloric defect.

A great example is maize. Raw corn is not going to keep you alive for very long. Masa, though, sustains entire civilizations, and it only works because you cook off the meal in high-pH water.

<comment><USER7> _Homo erectus_ 's ability to use cooking to liberate more nutrients from their food was probably a critical factor in the evolution of the huge brains we _homo sapiens_ are able to support.

<comment><USER8> You can get plenty of calories from raw animal fats. Cooking does help a lot with plants though. Also helps with infectious agents in meat and plants.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > avocados, nuts, dried fruit, and sweet fruit juices

I know many on a vegan diet and many on raw food. High nut consumption is definitely a thing. What is this "party line" being talked about here? Feels like a straw man kind of.

> An alternative is a diet of nuts (fats) and sweet fruit (sugar). Such a diet > may work better than a diet of avocados and sweet fruits. However, such a > diet violates the strict form of the raw "party line" that one should > sharply limit nut consumption.

Is there a source for that this is considered a violation by many?

Anecdotally, I know a guy who sustains pretty much exclusively on nuts and fruits grown where he lives (commune in Spain, they have nut trees) for 6 months a year (he's traveling the rest) and claims he never felt better and aims at keeping at it.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I don't know much about raw food veganism, but I thought fruit and nuts were rather important parts of it. Also because you can eat them without killing the plant.

The main reason to limit fruit and nuts is because they might be too high in calories. Obviously that limiting is not something you should take too far. Maybe the author misunderstood and cut fruits and nuts out completely?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The author lets their bias against veganism show with statements like this:

"Further, a significant amount of willpower is required to resist the frequent sugar cravings, which often leads to food (and self) obsessions (very common in fruitarianism)."

Did I miss the study where it was found that fruitarians are often self- obsessed? I would venture a guess that most _people_ are self-obsessed, regardless of their diet.

<comment><USER12> I have a hard time believing that fruititarianism could be healthy in any way. It seems like getting almost all of your energy from fructose and hardly any fat and protein (two of the 3 core macronutrients) could not possibly work. It makes me think of an article I read in the past 6 months about how zoo animals are having metabolic damage because the fruit we grow commercially is so high in sugar it's no longer healthy.

And this is purely anecdotal, but I watched a youtube video about a guy who went raw fruititarian for a few months, and his before and after photos were not inspiring. He lost some weight, but his skin and hair seemed fragile, and he seemed kind of lethargic and spacey in his after video.

<comment><USER11> Oh I don't doubt that fruitarianism is a less than optimal diet, but I don't know that it's fair to claim that fruitarians are generally self-obsessed (at least compared to practioners of other diets and fitness regimes).

<comment><USER13> It's not that it's "less than optimal", it kills you. It's what killed Steve Jobs for instance.

<comment><USER11> Well by definition, something that kills you is less than optimal (unless death is your goal).

<comment><USER13> Less than optimal has the connotation of being sufficient, but requiring more resources than strictly necessary.

<comment><USER11> My original post was about the author's bias, not about fruitarianism. My "less than optimal" comment was a gentle, intentionally non-confrontational effort to return the focus on bias rather than the specific diet. Clearly my effort failed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Need to point out something no one in the comments has: this is a 20 year old article.

</comment><comment><USER15> In one week, I can eat more than 20 kg of raw fruits (currently peaches, apricots, tomatoes; in other seasons: clementines, persimmons, ..), and another 5-6 kg of steamed vegetables (leafy onions, carrots, round eggplant, peppers). Sometimes, I add some full-grain rice or fish or honey.

The result is a lot of energy (except sometimes 1-2 hrs of digestion), no cold or other common illness, and a low BMI (body-mass index) indeed (I'm around 18), because it's not only low-calorie, but the fibers give a feeling of satiety for a long time

<comment><USER16> _and a low BMI (body-mass index) indeed (I 'm around 18)_

A BMI that low is not a good thing. It is evidence against your diet being optimal. Mortality rates are actually higher when BMI is below 20 ([https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156](https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156) [https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/353/bmj.i2156/F3.large.jpg](https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/353/bmj.i2156/F3.large.jpg) \-- although causality is not established). And from a common sense or aesthetic perspective, such a low BMI almost certainly means you lack ideal muscle mass.

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the warning, I'm around 60kg, 1.82m high. I do a lot of bike, and I'm sort of thin, for example I can join my thumb and any other finger around my wrist. You could consider someone like Hicham El Guerrouj (58/1.76 __2 == 18.7), that 18.5 limit is not really one for some morphologies

<comment><USER16> Super-star athletes aren't really good examples to learn from. They often have to do unhealthy and extreme things to their body in order to achieve absolute peak performance at one specific task. NFL linemen and sumo wrestlers are unhealthily overweight. Boxers and wrestlers have unhealthy levels of body fat and hydration in order to squeeze into the lowest possible weight class. And long distance runners avoid developing any upper body muscle, because every pound of additional weight costs seconds on their time. That's not something a normal person should do.

60kg at 1.82m strikes me as really fricking thin. I'm your height, and have considered myself a lean, athletic guy, but at 13% bodyfat I weigh 80kg.

<comment><USER15> Yes, but I'm a developer, why would I need more upper body muscles?

My daily activity doesn't require some more particular strength (although I wouldn't consider myself weak either), it's more about endurance. I've enough core strength to not have any back problem too (I avoid sitting on a chair though, but rather lie down/stretch out in front of my laptop)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I know a lot of vegans who indulge in sugary fruits and dishes. Most of my vegan peers, in fact. At the same time it is quite possible to keep high-fat, low-sugar vegan diet (or even plain vegan keto). It boils down to any above- ground plant, no fruits, various nuts, and a lot of oil - olive, avocado, coconut oil. And soy products of course. It is much healthier than consuming tons of fruits, destroying your metabolism and teeth.

<comment><USER18> A lot of vegetable oils is not good. Not nutritionally dense as real foods, pretty much almost empty calories and very bad omega3/6 ratio. That partially applies to nuts too. Small amount of nuts is probably ok, especcially walnuts.

<comment><USER19> [https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/No-need- to...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/No-need-to-avoid- healthy-omega-6-fats)

<comment><USER20> personally I would classify this as malpractice. The inflammatory effect of polyunsaturated oils is common knowledge at this point.

<comment><USER19> Are you sure? I thought it is basically consensus that _un_ saturated fats are the more healthy ones. Another source: [https://www.heart.org/en/healthy- living/healthy-eating/eat-s...](https://www.heart.org/en/healthy- living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/fats/polyunsaturated-fats)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been having this thought, however strange it may seem, it seems to me that the vegan movement, rightly justified by the cruelty that industrialization brings towards animals, is probably achieving the opposite effect of its original goal, that is, to stop killing animals for food.

The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be to brew tissue in a factory, sans brains, just the muscular system of animals. Seems plausible, right?

The problem is to reach that state, we require research. Research needs funding, and the only ones with an incentive to do that are companies that deal with meat. I imagine it is way more expensive to take care of animals than it would be to just grow muscles. But now that veganism is eating the world, that creates an impediment to that incentive, as the demand is now reduced and so the companies can just sustain their current production levels instead of finding ways to optimize them and therefore funding the research necessary.

So, in effect, veganism is causing _more_ animals to die in the macro-process of us reaching the technological state of growing tissue in the lab.

What do you think?

<comment><USER22> Your argument reads a lot like the "millenials are killing X" meme -- you're blaming people who've stopped engaging with a system for the continuing of that system. Factory farming is not vegans' responsibility, just as fossil fuel extraction is not bike-commuters' responsibility.

I agree with you that cultured meat is a much better food solution than factory farming, and I will absolutely advocate for that. But veganism _isn 't_ causing more animals to die by reducing demand for meat -- that logically doesn't follow.

(Also, "veganism is eating the world" is false -- it is on the rise, but less than one per cent of Americans are vegan, at least as of 2015. As a vegan, I still get a lot of looks and comments that prove that my lifestyle is _not_ the norm.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Anyone interested in good dietary book, please read Nutitrion and Physical Degeneration, Weston Price. Good information about the health benefits of eating properly.

</comment><comment><USER24> It appears the author avoids the simple solution of bringing more monosaturated oils into the diet. If raw vegetarianism forbids it, then it is likely a failed diet plan. Leaning more and more towards "keto vegetarian", I consume more olive oil to get those calories, and I am loosing weight still. Eating raw walnuts is supposed to be one of the highest sources of alpha linolenic acid, however upon visual analysis of stools you can see a large amount of walnut remains passing through without much apparent digestion.

On the other hand, the strict keto dieters are eating meat which has excessive cholesterol, artery clogging saturated fats and red meat has high loadings of free iron (toxic).</comment>