Demuth demonstrates how the theory of transversal posthumanities can be achieved in practice. Her work exemplifies how the transversal posthumanities can be incorporated and centered in a work of academic writing. There is a fluidity to the way she writes, not placing herself within the boundaries of one discipline or making a clear identification of who is the subject and the observer. Her work helps to expand the transversal posthumanities by incorporating the factor of agency, beyond the possibilities of who can hold knowledge. For instance, the whales learned to evade whaling boats while not doing the same for indigenous hunters. To expand our discussion on this phenomenon from yesterday, this perhaps was not just a reflection of understanding the differences between boats, but a deeper understanding of the humans themselves and their actions on the part of the whales. To embody a transversal posthumanist approach is to understand animals as holding knowledge of their own, but this could also be expanded further to the ability to see and judge humans through a moral lens. Perhaps we could read (as Demuth appears to do) the indigenous description of whales understanding the morality of the people they give their meat to more literally. Perhaps they understand more about us and watch us more than we think that they do. To understand animals as knowledge holders pokes holes in academic hierarchy. Academics is predicated on the idea that humans are exceptional and the knowledge we produce about other beings is more important or valuable than what the beings may communicate about themselves. It makes me wonder whether we can move beyond an anthropocentric state of academia when we inevitably view and interpret non-human entities through a human lens. To perhaps contradict myself a bit, we can attribute notions of morality, motherhood, and survival to the whales, but we are only working off of what we know rather than the knowledge that the whales hold. In that same vein, Demuth’s work may also show the limitations of attempting to go beyond the human as a human. Of course this is not to say that humans are incapable of knowing things that we can’t directly relate to or have experience with, but to what extent are we projecting onto non-human entities in the name of going beyond the human? As for how Demuth expands the Organic Machine, I got the sense from White that the organic machine was either inevitable or it didn’t matter how the river was treated was right or wrong because regardless, it could not be reverted back. I would be very interested to know how White thought about the role of morals while writing his piece. Demuth paints a very similar picture but her account does not shy away from emotions, showing the potential of doing so without devolving into empty platitudes or overwhelming devastation. Further, while White characterizes the role of economic systems as a homogenous entity of capitalism, Demuth brings nuances of whaling through the lenses of capitalism and socialism, but also shows the way they both devalued nonhuman life.