Posted on Oct 29, 2007
Animals and People
I just wanted to jott down a quick couple of observations about animals in our culture at present.
Currently it appears that science views human beings as just another form of animal. We're classified along side any other mammal. We may be the most "advanced" of mammals, but on a biological sense our accomplishments merely extraordinary for an animal.
I find this wholly disagreeable for many reasons. Primary among those reasons is that we have culture and language whereas animals entirely lack anything that even remotely resembles them.
I take this fact as a given as I think most do. There is however a confusion in how it's expressed by people in general. The most obvious example I think (although this is an unorthodox view) is subtlety in the arguments for global warming and environmentalism in general.
So here it is:
Scientists usually study animals under the assumption that animals put all their effort into survival and procreation (or continued survival). Everything they do is seen as directed towards that aim.
Human beings do quite a bit which would seem to be contrary to that goal, but any of our behavior can still be (forced) into that general motivation. Even if it comes to microscopic entities wihtin us determining our observable behavior, which in this understanding would be all for survival.
How then, could we possibly be doing anything to sabotage that endeavor? If what we're doing on a local view is for our continued existence, then it makes little sense to say that on a global level we're actually hindering that goal if we're aware of it. That's the point though. Many claim that we're aware of this possibility of self-destruction and we should discontinue the behavior that's contributing to it.
That's the current view (with all its inconsistencies). The point here is that, given our awareness of a possible self-destruction IS how we are distinguished from animals. Animals whom continue with behavior that, on the surface, appears beneficial yet ultimately results in self-destruction will merely eventuate their own destruction.
Therefore, we KNOW we're not animals by the simple fact that we attempt to preclude our own self-destructive behavior.
My second observation about animals is more of a question. Or results from a question....
Why do we think of little, fuzzy creatures when we think of animals in general? And why are those the animals we most want to "save"? Well, thinking about that....and thinking about how our meat is so far removed from its original forms...
I thought, perhaps part of the reason we have such an affinity for fuzzy little animals is that there's an alien distance between THEM and MEAT. Whereas, if we regularly witnessed the process of the animal being cut into parts, we wouldn't have the same view of them.
I mean, when we think of pork we don't usually think of the form of a pig. We think about meat. Which has an entirely different form when separated from its source.
So when we think of animals, or rather "pets", they take on different appearance to us.
It really makes very little sense that we breed some animals to eat (when we really don't have to) and breed other animals just to have around (for apparent affection).
[Mind you, all this is coming from a guy with more than a few pets who regularly draws cute animals :]
Blogged with Flock
Loading comments...