I have opened the web-page of B.I.O. and i have been really surprised. 
You can have a look if you wish.
Go to Conference proceedings. In it there is a collection of the papers of
many academic thinkers on biopolitics issues.

http://www.hol.gr/bio


As for the Hemp wedding dress:

I agree with Steve, this is what Enviro-consumerism is about (and Body
Shop for example is frequently commended for promoting it, this is not
something new).

HOWEVER, i would like to pose another issue, since my gene-terrorism was
not commended upon!

My new issue is that it is US (US not the U.S.!) the ones who think
natural is better and that naturalists are better (Steve included).
 We believe this because WE BOTHER to critisise them, like Steve does.

 Have you ever thought or bothered to question the reallity, the
scinetificness and the political correctness of TV commercials? 
Yes, they're common-place and yes, we all know that TV commercials are NOT
politically correct by default because the belong to the sphere of
commerical profit. We do not expect them to be ethical in what and how
they advertise. 

But WE DO expect from envirofellows to be more politically correct.
And we get crazy at the idea of the commercial world marketing a (really)
eco-friendly product (rarely, unfortunately!).
Now if ecological producers want to use marketing to sell their products,
we all go and blame them for failing to be ethical and correct. 
(and probably they are not).
But then again if they really have a good product (i don't mean now the
hemp wedding dress), how are they going to market it? 
Especially, how are they going to market it without seeming to play the
stupid clumsy greenwash, new-age, enviroconsumerism promoter, even if they
do not really want to promote consumerism but to replace an already
existing product with an environmentally friendly one?

Another issue that rises is that whether we want it or not, a
wedding is for some people a very symbolic occasion (such as the millenium
and Christmas), and by wearing hemp clothes they do not necessarily feel
that they are saving the environment, but that they serve a principle. 
Symbolism is true for good and for bad purposes (e.g. a cross and
war-flag), and it does mean a lot to people.

 In this case any wedding dress gives
me allergy (but this is AGAIN because this is a symbol that to me brings
other things in mind), and i do agree with Steve that the commercial
probably WAS promoting environmental consumerism.
 But for someone to whom a wedding
dress means something more than a dress, and is a symbol, it does count to
buy a more "politically correct" (symbolically) dress,  because the
only other option is to buy a politically incorrect product of a well
established industry. If i knew for example that part of the price of my
(brrr!) wedding dress went to charity instead of the pockets of the
industry, i would prefer it, because this action would promote the good
feelings that go with a wedding for some people (and i think this is
healty). 

So are we going to accuse these greenhemp consumers? If they were going to
consume anyway, is it better to succumb to envirofriendly products?
I think maybe, because this is in a way educational. If slowly we learn to
coence our consumeristic thirst with envirofrienldy products (IF THEY ARE
SUCH! but even if we just think they are), maybe our ethics as
consumerists do not change, but our environmental responsibility probably
does. Maybe this goal is worth the danger of politically INcorrect
marketing of environmentally friendly products.

The whole marketing industry is based on semiotics. Although i do not
find it politically correct, we might a bit flirt with the idea that we
use the same semiotics but for a good cause.


Maria Stella (not Ray!)




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%