To be sure, the biogeopolitics of all this are ambiguous, amazing, paradoxical, dangerous, and weird. Our at-hand ideas about sovereignty, transparency, therapy, jurisdiction, and privacy provide unreliable models for a biopolity based on the composite information that each of us physically secretes. This also makes projects like Exit incomplete, in that they draw prematurely conclusive images of totalities now overflowing their global frames. The pluralized User position may include melancholic information traces bearing witness to injustice, but this cannot develop in isolation from a far less certain politics of the stigmergic smear and stain. <sup>29</sup> With this in mind, it should be noted that Smarr the permanent patient, also collects his own feces and has them expertly analyzed. This is the best way to keep tabs on the state of his gut microbes, and through their cipher, the general state of his own health. Grandparent toilet bowl stool diviners, you were right: considering the density of DNA from microbes, from one ’ s own internal fluids, and from the DNA of the remaining foodstuffs that one ate, the human stool is one of the most information-dense substances you are likely to regularly encounter. Bit by bit, your stool is far more information rich per cubic centimeter than the flash memory in your iPhone. Lesson: We secrete more information than we ourselves constitute on our own. In their aggregation, are our shadows more substantial than what casts them? If so, where, if anywhere, do we finally pin down the stable sovereign of the User (or the individual person) as a systemic agent? For quantitative biomedicine (not just for deconstruction), presence finally guarantees less than the trace. Can we imagine an inversion, then, for which the sovereign interface to the platform is tethered to the structured information simulacrum instead of to the discrete entity from which it slips? Of course. We call this the profile, and platforms are built on economies of their administration. However, we need to more forcefully activate the back-and-forth between the profile and the individuated humanist subject so that the simulation ’ s work as the expression of multiple geopolitical and biopolitical intersections can do more and say more. What responsibilities the entity has to the profile, the profile has to the entity, and how the User position can or should mediate them are thankfully still open questions. Constitutional resolutions on privacy and permission seem feeble, both intellectually and strategically, without better options for what preferred policy actually might be. Do they hint of a bioethics in which a User person/profile ’ s refusal to submit data trails to holistic biomedical platforms, and by this endanger the care of the larger commons each of us is inevitably both consuming and secreting at once, would be analogous to today ’ s idiot stunt of refusing vaccines? Put another way, in such radically transparent environments, when do systems and individuals become indistinguishable, not to mention redundant? Is the design of one indistinguishable from the governance of the other, and if so, is the accountability of human individuals, as the subjects and users of digital regimes, really the most viable sovereign unit to enforce?
User Layer
269