The article describes an experiment in captive-bred supplementation of a highly endangered wild bird species that took place in the Norwegian Arctic a few years ago. Following the fate of a single bird, over the course of two years, the argument lays out some of the powerful conceptual, political and affective stakes involved in the experiment. The brief life of the bird, named A16, was contained almost entirely within an unresolved tension between salvific urgency and a purist biopolitics, deeply committed to the preservation of vanishing (or vanished) forms. Behind the scenes of the experiment, ornithological factions clashed over issues like genetic purity, the integrity of migration routes and the potential for behavioral contamination. Laying out the stakes of this, the argument begins to develop an account of salvific violence in conservation work—a framework for questioning the affective investments that drive purificatory biopolitics, especially during a time of planetary turmoil. What stands to be saved, what must be destroyed? What is a species, exactly, such that it can (or cannot) be saved in certain ways? What was A16?

中文翻译：

---

垃圾鸟的安魂曲：暴力，纯净与野性

这篇文章介绍了几年前在挪威北极圈养的一种高度濒危野生鸟类物种的人工饲养补充实验。在两年的时间里，随着一只鸟的命运，该论证列出了实验中涉及的一些有力的概念，政治和情感方面的利益。这只名为A16的鸟的短暂生活几乎完全被一种迫在眉睫的紧迫性和纯粹的生物政治之间的无法解决的紧张关系所束缚，后者致力于保护消失的（或消失的）形式。在实验的幕后，鸟类学派之间发生了争执，例如遗传纯度，迁徙路线的完整性以及行为污染的可能性。摆出赌注，该论点开始发展为保护工作中的救助暴力的解释，这是一个框架，用于质疑推动净化性生物政治的情感投资，尤其是在行星动荡时期。应当保存什么，必须销毁什么？到底是什么物种可以以某种方式保存（或不能保存）？什么是A16？