文 / 顧廣毅 Ku, Kuang-Yi
作為一個創作者，本人近年的許多作品皆關注於自然保育與傳統文化之間的衝突。2020年開始新型冠狀病毒（COVID-19）導致疫情爆發之後，許多輿論開始大量討論食用野生動物的各種生態爭議與健康議題，這與我過去的創作和研究也有了許多交集。因此在本文我希望以一個創作者的個人視角，嘗試論述相關爭議的各種觀點，並在藝術與設計領域中，藉由創作案例的分享，去引導讀者去看其他創作者是怎麼用他們自己的作品去回應相關的衝突。本文同時將以在疫情中被大量討論的爭議生物「蝙蝠」作為文章的圓心，希望讀者可以透過文章中提及的不同自然保育觀點、不同作品等等元素，去重新檢視蝙蝠在整個疫情爭議下的角色，以及其可以被探索的未知部分。我也會將本文視為自己的一個「創作筆記」，希望將本文作為之後創作以蝙蝠相關作品的前導研究，試著實驗以文字作為創作前期研究的方法。
此圖為正在飛行中華菊頭蝠（Chinese horseshoe bat）。2020年2月時世界衛生組織WHO發布報告，提出此次新型冠狀病毒肺炎事件的病毒，疑似是由中華菊頭蝠為感染源引起的。（資料來源：https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200211-sitrep-22-ncov.pdf）蝙蝠有1,200多種，約佔所有哺乳動物物種的四分之一。圖片來源：Merlin D. Tuttle/Science Source。
2020年初開始，新型冠狀病毒於人類群體中逐漸擴散， 其對人類身體所造成的疾病，也開始從各個不同面向大幅度地影響人類社會原本的正常運作。與其相關的各種研究皆受到全世界的關注，像是冠狀病毒本身的相關科學研究，抑或是疫情下的新世界秩序要怎麼應變與重建等等，其中病毒傳染的源頭就成為了一個關鍵的討論焦點。而疫情爆發之初，媒體聚焦在中國武漢華南海鮮市場與早期被檢驗出受病毒感染的民眾的大量交集。由於該海鮮市場長期販賣野生動物讓民眾作為食材，因此國際媒體以及輿論開始大量討論傳染源頭為人類食用野生動物的可能性[1]。隨之而來的相關報導因應而生，尤其像是蝙蝠、蛇以及穿山甲等等不同的野生動物，開始逐一被檢視，並匡列成為病毒可能的來源，而追捕罪魁禍首的氣氛也逐漸盛囂塵上。
其中最大量被討論的野生動物還是「蝙蝠」，其生物特質中體溫高、是唯一會飛行的哺乳動物以及本身體內的病毒多樣性都被部分科學家認為很有可能是這次疫情的起源[2]。但是也有許多科學家透過研究佐證，蝙蝠不一定是這次病毒傳染的源頭。長期關注瀕臨絕種蝙蝠的生態學家，事實上更擔心這波疫情所產生對蝙蝠的污名化，很有可能加速該物種的滅絕，並進一步破壞了原本生態循環的平衡。因此各種相關研究都持續的在進行，科學家們試圖逐漸釐清蝙蝠、病毒與人類疫情的各種相對關係，希望可以化解對於特定野生動物不必要的誤解 [3]。然而在這個假新聞與社群媒體盛行的年代，網路上群眾關注的焦點往往在還沒有被實證與查核的情形下，就已經如烽火燎原般一發不可收拾。
圖為中國女主持人汪夢雲於2016年在一檔名為《環球夢遊記》的旅遊節目中，前往帛琉時食用當地餐廳的蝙蝠湯的影片片段。該截圖在2020年疫情爆發之後，在網路上被大量轉載，並受到眾多網友指責與批評。圖片來源：https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7938207/Chinese-travel-presenter-ate-bat-begs-public-forgiveness-amid-coronavirus-outbreak.html
一張中國女性食用蝙蝠湯的照片在網路上快速地傳開，輿論一面倒地想要攻擊中國食用野生動物文化的刻板印象，彷彿急著宣洩疫情創傷下的巨大憤怒。然而，媒體經過事實查核後發現，該照片為電視節目拍攝主持人前往帛琉體驗當地蝙蝠湯的截圖片段，這同時也帶出了包含泰國、印尼、帛琉等等東南亞與太平洋區域的國家中，一直存在的吃蝙蝠的觀光文化。網路媒體對於相關議題的報導，引起了網路民眾的辯論，其中牽引出了國際輿論對於亞洲食用野生動物文化的斥責。這個野生動物保育與傳統飲食文化的衝突事實上在疫情前已經存在許久，其中一個主要原因來自於當代關於「生態保育」的主流思潮 [4] 。
許多生物學家在生態中心主義（Ecocentrism）的思想下，普遍認為自然保育是為了去保護整個「生態系」（Ecosystem），不是為了保護單一物種，也不是為了宗教或是道德的目的。因此若某些瀕臨絕種的蝙蝠被大量獵捕當作食物，除了有病毒跨物種傳染的危險之外，更重要的是會破壞整個生態系統的平衡，例如本來蝙蝠會獵食某種昆蟲，若蝙蝠消失則會導致該種昆蟲數量過多，而整個食物鏈則會失衡。然而，站在這個立場的保育人士常常主張必須撲殺一個環境中的外來種生物，因為外來種會破壞當地的生態系統，也就是說屠殺部分動物去維護生態系統的平衡是可以被接受的，而這樣的觀點也常常與相信動物擁有生存權的動物保護人士產生了衝突。
奧地利設計師雅莉珊卓・佛赫斯多佛的《新野味菜單》計畫（2017）。圖片來源： http://www.alexandrafruhstorfer.com/work/menu-from-the-new-wild/
對於這樣的概念，也有許多作品在回應外來物種的生態問題。例如奧地利設計師雅莉珊卓・佛赫斯多佛（Alexandra Fruhstorfer）的《新野味菜單》計畫（Menu from the New Wild , 2017）[5] 就提供了一個有趣的反向思考。《新野味菜單》中設計了數道以外來物種做為食材的料理，希望可以創造一個新的食物文化，透過人類的捕食，去降低外來物種的數量。這件作品除了針對生態保育的困境提出解法，同時也帶出了新的倫理問題，也就是殺戮特定生物去維持生態系本身的平衡是否有其倫理上的兩難？如前段所述，願意犧牲特定生物的生命去維繫生態系統的觀點，事實上還是與「動物權」（animal right）的觀念相左。根據動物權利論的學者湯姆・雷根（Tom Regan）的論述，他認為人類有感知，並在現今世界已經否定了奴隸制度，人類不再因為種族、性別、階級等等因素加以歧視，因此每個人類個體都有其內在的價值。他同時也認為動物作為生命個體，也同樣擁有感知，因此其內在價值不應該被忽視。動物權利論的擁護者認為人類不應該利用動物，動物並非人類的工具；因此使用實驗動物做實驗以及畜產業等等將動物視為工具的行為都是應該予以廢除 [6]。在這個觀念之下，很明顯地可以看出其與生態中心主義者對動物生命的處理態度大相徑庭。
有許多作品剛好回應了動物權利論，並嘗試不殺害動物的可能性，像是澳洲西澳大學SymbioticA的生物藝術家歐倫・卡茲（Oron Catts）與伊歐娜・祖兒（Ionat Zurr）在2004年發表的作品《零殘忍皮革》（Victimless Leather）[7] 便是一個有趣的例子。他們利用組織培養的生物科學技術，完成了一件縮小版本的皮衣，並試圖討論若該技術更加成熟時，人類就不再需要宰殺動物獲取毛皮製作衣服，只需要透過組織工程的方法，在實驗室養出大量的細胞並利用細胞組成皮革。
近年隨著組織工程與3D生物列印技術的發展，相關議題同時在文化與科技領域都被大量討論，當人類對於培養動物細胞與組織的技術更成熟之際，其可以被應用的範圍也非常廣泛。像是培養出人工器官在醫療上作為替代器官的使用，或是利用人工培養的動物組織來製作「人造肉」，取代原本仰賴畜牧業生產的肉類食品。然而，這些技術同時也引起了與《零殘忍皮革》這件作品相同的倫理爭議。也就是當人類的科技能夠創造動物組織，是不是也暗示了「自然」與「人造」的邊界的鬆動？在這個社會爭議之上，我們也會更加好奇在未來這些生物技術若更普及，整個人類的社會與文化會怎麼演變。荷蘭 Next Nature Network 的計畫《預見未來肉》（Meat the Future , 2014）[8]，便透過設計想像了一本人造肉的食譜，試圖設想在人造肉技術普及之後，人類會怎麼改變原本的烹飪習慣，甚至會創造出什麼樣的新興飲食文化。他們甚至創造一個虛擬的餐廳「Bistro In Vitro」[9]，透過網站讓民眾想像2028年的未來人造肉料理的不同可能性。
澳洲西澳大學SymbioticA的生物藝術家歐倫・卡茲與伊歐娜・祖兒的作品《零殘忍皮革》（2004）。圖片來源： https://tcaproject.net/portfolio/victimless-leather/
《零殘忍皮革》與《預見未來肉》這兩個計畫都專注在人工合成動物組織如何取代動物作為食品與商品的狀態。但兩個計畫卻在不同的軸線中開展出不同的敘事，《零殘忍皮革》中藝術家實際使用生物實驗室並用真的動物細胞，進行少量的組織培養並形塑成皮革造型。藝術家打破生物實驗室只可以被科學家使用的權力結構，並透過實際執行與操作生物實驗打開公眾辯論的空間，可以說是「縱向」的往下挖掘生物科技本身在被應用於人類文化中的倫理爭議。《預見未來肉》則跳過了較為深入的生物科技操作，把組織培養的生物科技作為想像起點，透過各種虛擬物件、插畫與影像勾勒出未來飲食的圖像，與一般大眾的日常生活產生更為強烈的感性連結。透過整個推測情境的編織，開展出一個「橫向」的想像剖面，帶領觀眾往更多元的面向探索。
荷蘭Next Nature Network的計畫《預見未來肉》（2014），圖為作品中的食譜。圖片來源： https://www.nextnature.net/projects/meat-the-future/
本文獲國家文化藝術基金會、文新藝術基金會贊助現象書寫–視覺藝評專案支持
》English Version
As an artist, many of my works have focused on the conflict between nature conservation and traditional culture. After the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, there has been tremendous discussion about the ecological controversies and health issues related to the consumption of wild animals, which came across my past practices and research. In this article, as an artist, I attempt to explore various standpoints from my personal perspective and to respond to these conflicts with works of other artists and designers, interpreting how they deal with these controversies. This article takes “bats,” which have been discussed extensively during the pandemic, as the core. I aim to guide the audience to re-examine the role of bats in the pandemic controversy and the unknown field that can be further explored through different conservation perspectives and works of art. Also, I would like to take this article as a “note” on my practice, using it as a pointer to my future practice abut bats and to experiment with writing as the methodology prior to the actual practice.
This is a flying Chinese horseshoe bat. In February 2020, the World Health Organization reported that the COVID-19 was suspected to be caused by the Chinese horseshoe bat. (source: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200211-sitrep-22-ncov.pdf) There are more than 1,200 species of bats, accounting for about a quarter of all mammals. Photo credit: Merlin D. Tuttle/Science Source
In early 2020, the novel coronavirus has been spreading in the human heredity and has damaged human immune system, largely affecting the operation of human society from many aspects. The world has paid close attention to various studies about the virus, such as the scientific research on the coronavirus itself or ways to deal with the pandemic and to construct a new world order. Among which, the origin of the virus has become a crucial point of the public discussion. At the beginning of the outbreak, the media focused primarily on the large number of infected people who have visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. The market is known for offering exotic game and wild animals as food. The international media and public opinions started to discuss the possibility that human consumption of wild animals was the origin of the infection.[1] Consequently, wild animals, such as bats, snakes, and pangolins, were widely reported and examined. They were even listed as possible sources of the virus.
The most discussed wild animal is the “bat.” Some scientists believe that bats are the likely origin of the pandemic due to their high body temperature, the fact that they are the only flying mammal, and the diversity of viruses in their bodies.[2] Still, other scientists have confirmed through research that bats may not be the source of the virus. Ecologists who have long been focusing on the endangered species of bats are more concerned that the stigma of bats may accelerate the extinction of the species and further disrupt the ecological balance. Therefore, scientists are still trying to clarify the relationship between bats, viruses, and the pandemic, aiming to resolve the misconceptions about specific wild animals. [3] Yet, in the era of fake news and social media, public discussion on the Internet has become uncontrollable before the information has been verified and properly checked.
Wang Mengyun, a Chinese travel presenter, ate bat soup at a restaurant in Palau in 2016 for a travel show. After the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020, the screenshot image went viral on the internet and she was criticized by the public. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7938207/Chinese-travel-presenter-ate-bat-begs-public-forgiveness-amid-coronavirus-outbreak.html
A photo of a Chinese woman eating a bat quickly went viral on the Internet. Public opinion overwhelmingly attacked stereotypes of wildlife consumption culture in China as if venting the rage over the trauma left by the pandemic. However, after fact-checking, it was confirmed that the photo was taken from a footage of a television show, which showed a celebrity experiencing local bat soup in Palau. The incident also brought out to light the bat-consuming tourism culture in Thailand, Indonesia, Palau, and other countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific region. The online media coverage of this issue triggered a debate among internet users, which has led to international criticism of the wild animals-eating culture in Asia. The conflict between wildlife conservation and traditional food cultures has been long discussed before the pandemic, and one of the main reasons comes from the prevailing contemporary reflection about “ecological conservation.”[4]
With the thinking of Ecocentrism, many biologists generally believe that nature conservation aims to conserve the entire ecosystem, not just protecting a specific species, nor for religious or moral purpose. If the endangered species of bats are hunted massively as food, there would be a risk of cross-species transmission of viruses and more critically, the balance of the entire ecosystem would be destroyed. For instance, if bats, which prey on certain insects, are no longer present, the number of the insect would be excessive and make the food chain break. However, conservationists hold the view often argue that exotic species must be removed since they damage the local ecosystem. That is to say, it is acceptable to kill some animals to maintain the balance of the ecosystem, and this view often goes against with wildlife conservationists who support animal rights.
In response to such a concept, many art and design projects address the ecological issues of exotic species. For example, Austrian designer Alexandra Fruhstorfer’s “Menu from the New Wild” (2017) [5]provides an intriguing counterpoint.[6] In “Menu from the New Wild,” the designer creates several dishes with exotic species as ingredients, intending to create a new food culture and reduce the number of exotic species by human consumption. This work proposes a solution to the struggle of ecological conservation and raises a new ethical issue at the same time: is there an ethical dilemma in removing specific animals to maintain the balance of the ecosystem itself? As mentioned, the idea of sacrificing a particular species to maintain an ecosystem is at odds with the concept of “animal rights.” The American philosopher Tom Regan, the author of Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, believes that human beings can sense and perceive, and with the removal of slavery, human beings are no longer discriminated against race, gender, and social class. Therefore, every individual has their own value. Hence, he argues that animals, as living beings, can sense and perceive, too. Therefore, we shouldn’t neglect their value either. The advocates of animal rights hold the view that humans should not make use of animals and that animals are not human’s tools. Therefore, in their opinion, animal testing and animal husbandry, which treats animals as tools, should be abolished.[7] It is clear that their concept is distinctive from the ecocentrists’ standpoint.
Alexandra Fruhstorfer, Menu from the New Wild (2017) source: http://www.alexandrafruhstorfer.com/work/menu-from-the-new-wild/
Many works respond to animal rights and seek the possibility not to kill animals, such as “Victimless Leather”[8] by Australian artists Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr from the SymbioticA, the University of Western Australia. The artists employed the biotechnology of tissue culture to create a tiny leather-like jacket, assuming that humans would to grow leather in the laboratory when tissue engineering was more sophisticated. Hence, no animals would be killed for making leather clothing.
With the development of tissue engineering and 3D bioprinting technologies in recent years, related issues have been discussed extensively in both humanistic and technological sectors. As humans become more sophisticated in culturing animal cells and tissues, the technology can be widely applied. For example, artificial organs can be cultured for medical use to replace a natural organ; or producing “cultured meat” using tissue engineering technology to substitute meat that would otherwise come from livestock. However, these technologies raise similar ethical controversial issues as “Victimless Leather” did. That is, when human technology can produce animal tissues, does it imply the loosening of the boundary between “natural” and “artificial”? Regarding the social controversy, we are curious about how our society and culture will develop and evolve in the future if these biotechnologies become more popular and accessible. The international network Next Nature Network, based in Amsterdam, presents a cookbook of lab-grown meat in their project “Meat the Future” (2014)[9] and speculating the alternative dishes and culinary culture when in vitro meat production become mature and accessible. They even create a virtual restaurant, “Bistro In Vitro,”[10] encouraging the public to envision possibility of in vitro meat dishes in 2028 through the website.
Both of “Victimless Leather” and “Meat the Future” focus on how cultured animal tissues substitute real animal as food and commodities. In “Victimless Leather,” the artists experiment with real animal cells in a biological laboratory and culture a small amount of tissue and shape it into a tiny leather jacket. The artists break the power hierarchy that only scientists can access to biological laboratories. Through the experiment and operation, the two artists open up a space for public debate, “vertically” penetrating ethical controversies of biotechnology itself when it is applied to human culture and society. “Meat the Future,” on the other hand, skips the in-depth biotechnology experiment and takes tissue culture as the point of departure, illustrating the image of future food culture through virtual objects, illustrations and images, creating a stronger tie to the public’s daily life experiences. Through the weaving of the speculative scenario, the project “horizontally” develops future possibilities, leading them to explore alternative aspects of this issue.
Oron Catts and Ionat Zurr ( SymbioticA), Victimless Leather (2004). Source: https://tcaproject.net/portfolio/victimless-leather/
Next Nature Network, Meat the Future source: https://www.nextnature.net/projects/meat-the-future/
[1]“Wet markets' likely launched the coronavirus. Here's what you need to know.”, National Geographic, April 15, 2020. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/coronavirus-linked-to-chinese-wet-markets
[2] How Do Bats Live With So Many Viruses?”, The New York Times, June 1, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/science/bats-coronavirus-Wuhan.html?
[3] “Covid: Why bats are not to blame, say scientists”, BBC, October 12, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54246473
[4] “Chinese travel presenter who ripped apart a BAT with her hands before eating the 'nutritious' dish in her show begs the public for forgiveness after being blasted amid coronavirus outbreak”, Daily Mail, January 28, 2020. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7938207/Chinese-travel-presenter-ate-bat-begs-public-forgiveness-amid-coronavirus-outbreak.html
[6] Regan, Tom. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Comments