Boys Don't Cry

I am pretty positive about that I am an emotionally intelligent person. I cried the first time I saw The Notebook and I thought Legally Blonde was pretty entertaining. Yeah. There. I said it. What’re you going to do about it?

           I'VE GOT TO ADMIT, THIS MOVIE TUGGED SOME STRINGS.

So, I don’t think that I necessarily have a problem with being stoic or insensitive to the world around me. However, I believe our society actually encourages and puts pressure on its males to be emotionally retarded, if you will. It’s pretty simple: if you have something between your legs, you aren’t supposed to cry, you aren’t supposed to want to talk, you aren’t supposed to be concerned with too much outside of fixing things, mowing the lawn, drinking beer, having sex, and frantically yelling at the game on TV as if you were the head coach. If you don’t feel this way, then you get called the equivalent of not having something between your legs. As males, we are not meant to “harmonize head and heart,”[1], but rather heart and reproductive organ.

FROM A YOUNG AGE, THE IDEA OF NOT SHOWING EMOTION IS BRANDED ONTO MALES.

 A great example of a stereotypical male and his expected absence of compassion, that is “the feeling or emotion, when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it,”[2] is given in Philip Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. In the novel, the chickenhead Isidore must tell Mrs. Pilsen that her cat has died. Yet, Isidore tries to console the grieving Mrs. Pilsen by informing her that she can get an “exact electric duplicate of [her] cat…in which every detail of the old animal is faithfully repeated,”[3] and that such an opportunity exists is “fortunate.”[4] While she eventually takes Isidore’s offer, the Mrs. Pilsen was not consoled by Isidore’s way of communication. 

 MEN HAVE A REPUTATION FOR BEING INSENSITIVE AND NOT UNDERSTANDING.

That moment, in her time of grief, the last thing this woman probably wanted to talk about was getting a new robotic cat for her husband. Isidore’s misplaced words is just another example of men are generalized as being insensitive to women who “in general, feel both positive and negative emotions more strongly than do men.”[5] I think that because of our culture’s expectations of men to have such a limited emotional range, the story of Gary, the “intelligent, thoughtful, and a successful surgeon”[6] who was “emotionally flat, completely unresponsive to any and all shows of feeling.”[7] In his situation, I don’t think his enormous intelligence has somehow suppressed his emotional side (I don’t think any side of the brain is dominating the other), but he is emotionally limited by the standards of his sex.

            I believe this emphasis on being an uncompassionate male can contribute to the deterioration of one’s ethics. For any one male, what starts off as “boys don’t cry” can, with a few wrong turns, become “boys don’t feel”, which can, under the worst circumstances, morph into “boys don’t have compassion, empathy, or sympathy.” When one is told this from a very young age, the belief is like a disease that can’t be cured. Perhaps this is why there are ten times as many male murderers—people like David Lee Powell—as female.

PERHAPS POWELL WAS AFFECTED BY OUR SOCIETIES MALE STIGMA.

[1] Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Intelligence,” X61

[2] definition of compassion,X41

[3] Philip Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, 80

[4] Philip Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, 80

[5] Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Intelligence,” X62

[6] Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Intelligence,” X64

[7] Daniel Goleman, “Emotional Intelligence,” X64

PHOTOS:

1. The Notebook, http://www.reellifewisdom.com/files/images/notebook%203.jpg

2. Don't Cry, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blast/showcase/submitted/images/gallery/118496133228393352770_1.jpg

3. Cartoon, http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/amc0711l.jpg

4. Powell, http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/r/k/powelld.jpg

Manimals

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTbJf8RDPgs  

I THOUGHT THIS VIDEO WOULD ADD A LITTLE HUMOR AND LIGHT-HEARTEDNESS TO THE CONVERSATION.

I think I may have finally come to a conclusion about my feelings toward animals, specifically animals that we breed for our own uses, and whether or not our actions are a representation of survival of the fittest.

            First off, in order to come to such realizations, I had to remind myself that humans are “living creatures”[1], and thus animals. We are in the same category as the cows, pigs, and sheep that we slaughter. We “animals” all have the desire to reproduce, to find food and drink, to have shelter, and to sleep. However, despite our similarities to the brethren of our kingdom, there are quite a few drastic differences that set us apart.

            WE MUST REMEMBER THAT AT ONE OF OUR MOST BASIC DEFINITIONS, WE ARE STILL JUST ANIMALS. 

One main distinction between humans and non-human animals is that humans were given the talent of ingenuity and creative thinking ability. In fact, a human is defined as being “distinguished from animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright posture.”[2] Even our posture symbolizes our higher level of sophistication. However, I feel that our greater thinking capacity is both a gift and a curse. While it, along with our opposable thumbs, has allowed us as a species to create great paintings, beautiful symphonies, a weeks worth of weather predictions, durable shelter, and endless means of entertainment, it has also brought about the creation of money, pollution, jobs, “being naked [and] knowing it”[3], ethics, and everything that complicates the necessities of life.

           A DOG DOES NOT KNOW, NOR CARE, THAT IT IS "NAKED"...YET WE CLOTHE THEM ANYWAY.

Another byproduct of our higher intellect is how we have gone about the idea of survival of the fittest between species, namely our way of accumulating food. As humans, we weren’t blessed with the speed of a cheetah, the strong jaw of a lion, or the strength of a bear. These are all outstanding characteristics that enable these species to have a good chance at surviving. However, humans weren’t given any such remarkable physical trait. No—instead we were given the ability to outsmart animals, to create contraptions that would render their superior physical capabilities obsolete. Now, does this give our captured animals a fair chance? Of course not, but (as horrible as it sounds) nowhere in the description of survival of the fittest is the term “fair” mentioned. There also aren’t six billion cows in the world that need to be fed.

          PHYSICALLY, WE DON'T STAND A CHANCE AGAINST LARGER ANIMALS. ONLY BY THE POWER OF OUR MIND ARE WE ABLE TO HOLD OUR OWN.

  Despite our greater minds, I feel that most people do not possess “the power of projecting one’s personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation.”[4] I have never been locked in a cage, seen a friend be killed, or experienced torture. I can only imagine that just the victims of genocide may ever know what these animals go through. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO HAVE EMPATHY FOR A CREATURE WITH WHICH ONE CANNOT COMMUNICATE OR RELATE TO.

Yet, because of this inability of ours, we tend to view other species as “vastly inferior”[5] and ourselves as “highly developed.”[6] Thankfully though, “no one can deny the suffering, fear or panic, the terror or fright that humans witness in certain animals.”[7] As a result of this fact, I would like to believe that those responsible for the death of animals make the process a “speedier, and by that means a less painful one than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature.”[8] A certain movie, though, has shown me that such is not the case.

            So, when it comes down to it, I definitely feel that there should be some serious reform in the treatment of animals, for we must remember that they aren’t that much different from us, though I don’t ever see myself giving up meat.

---

[1] Jacques Derrida, “The Animal That Therefore I Am (Following),” X34

[2] definition of “human”, Oxford English Dictionary, X36

[3] Jacques Derrida, “The Animal That Therefore I Am (Following),” X22

[4] definition of “empathy”, X45

[5] Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, 42

[6] Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, 42

[7] Jacques Derrida, “The Animal That Therefore I Am (Following),” X32

[8] Jeremy Bentham, “the Principles of Morals and Legislation”, X47

PHOTOS:

[1] goat/man, http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/09/24/narnia-goat-man.jpg

[2] dog with sweater, http://www.drsfostersmith.com/images/Categoryimages/normal/p-32521-41071P_013-dog.jpg

[3] bear, http://www.eteamz.com/MontgomeryLittleLeague/images/GrizzlyBear-scary.jpg

[4] empathy, http://www.catherinelazure.com/ImagesforWeb/Empathy3_99Lg.jpg

Why isn't the T-Rex mentioned in the Bible?

 When it comes down to it, especially in the absence of religion, we truly are all pretty insignificant. “Under [us], beneath the long grass, [are] millions of bones,”[1] and above us are “infinities surpassing the powers of imaginations.”[2]

THERE IS AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF SPACE ABOVE US...

...AND AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF DEAD ANCESTORS BENEATH OUR FEET. WHAT, THEN, IS OUR SIGNIFICANCE?

150 (perhaps a little bit longer due to technology) years from now the life that I lead—where I go to school, what I enjoy doing, who I befriend, who I help, what I look like—will be completely irrelevant, if not entirely forgotten, even by members of my own family. I know this is going to happen because none of my relatives of this generation or I can  name our great-grandparents. That is just how things are: after more than three generations, it’s so long and thanks for all the genes gramps. Sometimes I think about this and wonder why I get so worked up about things like school-work or financial problems. The accolades and salaries that we accumulate in this lifetime are so small in the grand scheme of this planet that they aren’t even worthy of a shout-out on it’s timeline. For no matter what we accomplished, we all will someday end up in the same dirt. Hell, even the planet whose dirt we will rot in is fairly insignificant in terms of the universe. 

   THE DETAILS OF MY EXISTENCE WILL NEVER APPEAR ON ANY TYPE OF TIMELINE. I AM OF TOO SMALL IMPORTANCE.         

Okay, so since that is over with, is anyone else as bummed out as I am? I don’t particularly enjoy that fact that “mankind [appears] as an incidental and fortuitous episode in the age-long history of the stars.”[3] In fact, it is something that I find very hard to accept. I’m supposed to do all this hard work creating a life for myself while being a good person and then when it’s over I just get decomposed by maggots in the ground? It just ends? Huh? No, no, no. There must be some other reason I am here, a reason that is much more fulfilling. This is where religion comes in. My religion fills me with a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, and, to be honest, a sense of sanity. I have to believe that we were put on this earth, that our bodies are constructed so efficiently, that we are able to create and contemplate so much, for some reason other than pure coincidence. I have to believe that “Nothing walks with aimless feet; that not one life shall be destroyed, or cast as rubbish to the void, when God hath made the pile complete.”[4] Our lives have purpose and meaning, and as a result our lives are valued by God, no matter how insignificant we may feel while here on Earth.

RELIGION OF ALL KINDS CAN GIVE PEOPLE A SENSE OF PURPOSE, BELONGING, AND MEANING.

However, I would be lying if I said that I have never questioned my faith or wondered why horrible things like natural disasters happen or why people suffer. It leads me to ponder if “God and Nature [are] then at strife”[5], why “Time [can be] a maniac scattering dust, and life [can be] a fury resembling flame.”[6] The truth is I don’t know why these things happen, but can only believe that they are all part of some heavenly plan and hope that I am right. I feel this way because doesn’t everybody want to die for something, to be a part of something bigger than themselves?

Science, with its facts, proof, tangible and visible results, is a hard argument to ignore. Yet, I have always felt like science and religion can coexist—that science can be used to prove religion as much as it can be used to refute it. Perhaps I am just naïve and childish on this subject, but I still steadfastly believe what my Sunday school teachers always told me: that yes, God created the world in six days and then took the seventh day off, and that no, we cannot define how long a day is in God’s mind. A day could by 30 seconds, five years, or even millions of years. Why then can’t evolution and the big bang theory coexist with creationism? 

 I DON'T PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT ON SUCH SUBJECTS, BUT I DON'T VIEW THE COEXISTENCE OF CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION AS BEING ENTIRELY FAR-FETCHED. 

As crazy as it may sound, I have always felt that God is still continuing his work, still perfecting us in his image through evolution. I view “God as a loving being who directs evolution toward beneficent ends.”[7] One day we may finally get there, but not yet. Maybe this sounds silly, but I don’t know how else to explain the existence of dinosaurs and their obvious omission from the Bible.

            I admit that it can be difficult to believe in something that is cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted. However, I find it even more difficult to believe that our planet and its inhabitants (including us), with all of our intricacies, came to be in our present situation by pure, random occurrence. In the end, “[I] know not anything, I can but trust that good shall fall.”[8] That is what faith is all about.

---

[1] Larry McMurtry, “Living Among Skeletons and Ghosts,”, X603A

[2] Lionel Stevenson, “Darwin among the Poets,” Darwin 653

[3] Lionel Stevenson, “Darwin among the Poets,” Darwin 653

[4] Alfred Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” lyric LIV

[5] Alfred Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” lyric LV

[6] Alfred Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” lyric L

[7] Lionel Stevenson, “Darwin among the Poets,” Darwin 654

[8] Alfred Tennyson, “In Memoriam,” lyric LIV

PHOTOS:

[1] Starry sky, http://www.galaxypix.com/stars/4086.jpg

[2] bones in the ground, 

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1914143/2/istockphoto_1914143_bones_in_the_ground.jpg

[3] timeline, http://www.dinosaurisle.com/images/Timeline%203.gif

[4] women praying,http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/2849950885_a84a968628.jpg?v=0

[5] Jesus with Darwin, http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/16/darwin_phototennis.jpg

Dog eats dogs, then cares for other dogs

 Growing up, my dad, being the cheesball that he is, would always try to incorporate life lessons into our mundane daily activities. If my entire family managed to make it to the dinner table, he would always say “Now this is what it’s all about.” When I would sweep the floors, he made sure that I got the corners too, because “the little things are just as important as the big picture.” And whenever I was struggling with something, whether it be in the field of academics or athletics, he always made sure I understood that “there will always be someone better than [me], so [I] should just concentrate on doing [my] best.”

LANCE ALWORTH'S FATHER TOLD HIS SON THAT HE WOULD NEVER BE THE BEST AT HIS SPORT. LANCE WENT ON TO BE A PRO FOOTBALL HALL OF FAME RECEIVER.

While this may be true, it didn’t stop me from trying like hell to be the best—the fittest—at whatever I did. Often times, if I realize I can’t be at least one of the best at something—perhaps activities that require traits that “are [not] in [my] genes and cannot be changed”[1]—I will give up completely. 

BASEBALL WAS SOMETHING I WAS TERRIBLE AT. AFTER ONE RUN IN AN ENTIRE SEASON, I DECIDED THIS WOULD BE THE LAST BASEBALL PICTURE I EVER TOOK. 

 On the opposite end of the spectrum, if I find something I am good at, I tend to be rather ruthless in my execution, basically throwing ethics out the window.

            However, this leads me to a very interesting crossroad concerning my leadership vision. My situation is very much like Dana’s. The career path of a doctor is (ironically) one that is permeated with a dog-eat-dog mentality, for being a good surgeon requires a great sense of kindness and a will to help. Getting into med school is one of the most competitive, challenging processes one can go through. It’s not enough to just have good grades, it’s not enough to have the most volunteer hours, it’s not enough to have the highest MCAT score—they want you to do everything and do it very, very well. It is as if these schools, on their search for medical Arians, are throwing us all into a cage, locking the door, turning up the heat, and forcing us to duke it out, royal rumble style. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErK4y7GmxL8

I FELT THIS WAS A GOOD METAPHOR FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL APPLICANTS. I CAN HOPE TO BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS GOLDBERG.

It is a situation where “the strongest, the most self-assertive, tend to tread down the weaker,”[2] because they have to.

            Yet, I believe that once I achieve my goal of becoming a doctor, the competitive nature and the urge to dominate one’s fellow man, must stop. It is a profession where for twelve years of training the switch must be turned to the harsh survival mode of nature and then suddenly switch to nurture. 

 IT WILL BE HARD TO SWITCH MY WAY OF THINKING AS A MEDICAL STUDENT TO THAT OF AN ACTUAL DOCTOR. 

work, in the grand scheme of life will rely upon my compassion for people, my ability to see them as more than just “temporary carriers”[3] of genes, and my desire as a leader to encourage the “maintenance of life, the preservation of [our] species, and its further evolution.”[4] Also, if my goal to become a leader is a success, I hope to “give those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise”[5]— those whose shoes I am currently in—for they will one day hold the key to continuing our health and our growth as a species. In this way, perhaps the meaning of Darwin’s adage will come to be “not so much survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many possible to survive.”[6]

---

[1] Steven Pinker, “How the Mind Works”, 472, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[2] T.H. Huxley, “Evolution of Ethics”, 502, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[3] Edward Wilson, “Sociobiology: The New Synthesis”, 409, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[4] Peter Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid”, 399, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[5] Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth”, 397, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001).

[6] T.H. Huxley, “Evolution of Ethics”, 502, from: Philip Appleman, Darwin (New York: Norton and Company, 2001). 

PHOTOS: 

[1] Lance Alworth, http://www.playitusa.com/nflhistory/images/399.jpg

[2] Me, my own picture

[3] Nature vs. Nurture, http://www.adoptionblogs.com/media/FosterAdoption/nature_nurture.jpg

I ask for directions

I guess I don’t follow the norm when it comes to reading directions. While I definitely understand why “very few people take the time to read instructions”[1]—they can be boring, condescending, and daunting in length—I have always preferred, even insisted upon, directions.

READING INSTRUCTIONS ISN'T JUST FOR DUMMIES. I HAVE A HARD TIME DOING AN ASSIGNMENT WHEN THERE ARE FEW DIRECTIONS. 

 I have been this way ever since I was a little kid. One of my mom’s favorite embarrassing story about me (which she tells at any opportunity) concerns my first homework assignment in first grade. The teacher told us to put a circle around the nouns in a sentence and put a square around the verbs; however, when I got home I couldn’t remember which shapes I was supposed to use. Triangles? Rectangles? Circles? Octagons? It was geometrical hell. My mom tried to communicate to me that it wasn’t the shapes that were important, but the fact that I could distinguish between nouns and verbs. Despite her words of wisdom, I proceeded to have myself a slight panic attack that ended with tears running down my face and blank sentences.

            Fast forward twelve years and I am still very much the same in regards to directions, minus the whole freaking out and crying bit. I want to know what it is that I need to do in order for my work to be a success, and I don’t mind being dictated to in order to achieve this. Following directions has always given me a sense of accomplishment and comfort; as long as I do what they say, my project will not suffer. I am often held hostage by written commands, yet the situation almost always ends peacefully. 

WITHOUT CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS, I OFTEN FEEL CONSTRAINED. I WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT WHAT IS EXPECTED THAT I HARDLY GET ANYTHING DONE. 

However, there are times when the directions go all double agent on me, and that is when the expletives start to fly.

As much as I love and feel the need for directions, I simply can’t stand it when they are unclear, vague, or just flat out incorrect. 

CLOUDY INSTRUCTIONS OFTEN LEAD ME TO BEING LOST AND CONFUSED.

high school teachers would occasionally get pretty annoyed with me and my detailed questions (i.e. “even though the instructions say five pages, is it alright if I go a little over?”). I knew that sometimes what I was asking about was irrelevant, but if I didn’t ask, I wouldn’t be able to work on a project in piece. My main problem with the portfolio instructions was how open ended they were, for they essentially said “copy and paste the code from a website and then write in what you want.” I might as well have been trying to build a spaceship. I wouldn’t have even known what I wanted to put in the code if I had known how to write it. This of course led me to spending a few hours in Dr. Bump’s office with a very “show me how to do this” attitude. I was at the point where I “seemed to prefer someone showing [me] what to do, an instant fix.”[2] My main motivation for going to get help wasn’t to get an “instant fix” though, but to avoid going home only to find out that something doesn’t work.

Even though I spent quite a bit of time in Dr. Bump’s office, I eventually gave up on his method and decided to use iWeb instead (a program that I didn’t initially use because of the fact that there were no instructions provided for it). The directions were simply too vague, or perhaps too advanced, for me to efficiently use them. iWeb conveniently turned out to be very user friendly. I was “able to get it—what it is and how to use it—without expending any effor thinking about it.”[3] Once I began using iWeb, the project took about two hours, about 1/3 of the time I had dedicated to simply figure out the instructions given to us.

I HAVE FOUND THAT MAC PRODUCTS SIMPLIFY COMPLEX PROJECTS, WHICH PUTS A BIG SMILE ON MY FACE. 

[1] Krug, 2006, p. 26

[2] Bump

[3] Krug, 2006, p. 11

Coetzee 2

       I have been thinking about this subject quite a bit lately. I can’t seem to escape it. It’s true though—no longer being ignorant about the torture that my chicken strips went through en route to being so delicious makes them not as enjoyable as they once were. My tasty piece of bird probably led a very sad, horrendous life. It probably spent its whole life in some inconceivably small cage: “to him, the world [was] bars.”[1] It most likely was murdered on a conveyor belt o’ death, hanging upside down while gurgling its own blood. Its like a clip form Saw. Eventually, it flew its way onto my plate at Jester City Limits. Don’t get me wrong, I am no Franz Kafka. Meat still tastes good and I am going to continue to eat it. It’s just that now I tend to think about what I consume. Also, I tend to think about why and how we came to become so dominant over our fellow earthlings. So, now I am going to do my best Costello impersonation.

[P1] I STILL EAT FOODS LIKE THESE, BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME NOT THINKING ABOUT WHERE THEY CAME FROM. 

            I, like most of us I’m sure, would love for animals to be able to “lead a utopian life in which everyone is miraculously fed and no one preys on anyone else.”[2] If this were possible, I can’t think of who wouldn’t be in favor of it. However, the truth of the matter is that such a situation is just that—a utopia. It is not realistic, for the mighty dollar, and contemporary society’s mighty appetite, take priority over the care of animals. Such a perfect world could only exist in an “economic vacuum,”[3] which, like all vacuums, doesn’t exist naturally. The meat business makes who knows how much money, and that is what we have to remember about this whole situation—that this is a business. As sad as it is, our main supply of meat no longer comes from small farms owned by a trusted town family. There is simply “no time to respect and honor the all the animals we need to feed ourselves”[4], nor enough land, for the industry to exist this way, and, as the old adage goes, time is money. The companies are going to produce as much meat as they can while doing so in the least expensive way. They don’t want the animals to be treated kindly or killed humanely (if that is possible) because of the cut it would take out of their profits.

 

  [P2]A UTOPIA LIKE THE ONE DESCRIBED ABOVE IS AS LIKELY TO BECOME A REALITY AS ALICE'S WONDERLAND. 

         I believe that another reason that we kill our food the way we do is a result of our beastly roots. We are all animals, and animals kill their prey in the most efficient way possible. A lion does not kill its dinner while considering its feelings, nor does it go about the process making sure that its death is as painless as possible. No—it murders the animal in a way that is the most convenient, quickest, and easiest for itself. Are we any different? We as a species do not possess the speed of the cheetah, the jaws of a hyena, the strength of a tiger, the cunning of a crocodile, nor any other extraordinary physical gift that would allow us to successfully hunt wild animals. We must instead rely on our creativity and ingenuity. It is these attributes that have led to our creation of guns, slaughterhouses, and farms, resulting in our dominance over animals. Our mental capabilities have allowed us to gather our food in the way that is the easiest for us. I am not saying that our greater mental capacity justifies our treatment of animals, but it is simply a way of showing that we are simply utilizing the skills we were born with.

            

[P3] ANIMALS ARE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO HUNT THEIR PREY WITHOUT TOOLS AND WITHOUT GUILT. WE APPARENTLY ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THE SAME.

I don’t know how important the answer to why we treat these animals so badly is. I am not sure if that would change anything. There are over 6 billion people in this world, and the majority of them “like eating meat.”[5] The demand for our increasingly carnivorous appetites is growing, and the only way to meet such expectations is to harvest these animals as if they grew out of the ground: via “factories of death”[6]. “You do not feed four billion people through the efforts of matadors or deer hunters armed with bows and arrows.” It is definitely possible to care deeply about such animals. “If they relate to us as individuals, and we relate to them as individuals, it is possible for us to have a personal relationship.”[7] Yet, it is nearly impossible to do so when they are created by the thousands and slaughtered by the thousands. It would be asking a lot to genuinely care about that many humans, let alone another type of animal with which we can’t communicate.

[P4] IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GENERATE ENOUGH MEAT FOR 6 BILLION PEOPLE USING THESE PRIMITIVE METHODS. 

            As long as our affinity for meat and our obedience to the dollar persist, animals will continue to be killed in a way that is nothing short of unappetizing.

---

[1] Rainer Maria Rilke, “The Panther”, translated by D.C. Barranco, X763H

[2] J.M. Coetzee, Elizabeth Costello, pg. 110

[3] J.M. Coetzee, Elizabeth Costello, pg. 110

[4] J.M. Coetzee, Elizabeth Costello, pg. 97

[5] J.M. Coetzee, Elizabeth Costello, pg. 104

[6] J.M. Coetzee, Elizabeth Costello, pg. 97

[7] Barbara Smuts, “Reflections,” X759

[P1] http://www.jbrestaurants.com/chixnstripsbasket.jpg

[P2]http://www.artgame.com/images3/wonderland.jpg

[P3] http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/shr0874l.jpg

[P4] http://www.magherafelt.gov.uk/uploads/23b9fcc6fb4412444aa078a9b1c96d60.jpg

Wow. That was gross.

Ok I’ll admit it. When I first saw what this topic was I honestly thought it wouldn’t affect me in any way. I love meat. Always have. And I didn’t think anything could change my mind. I was definitely one of those “cling to a vague belief that conditions cannot be too bad, or else the government or the animal welfare societies would have done something about it.”[1] However, after reading through Earthlings, as well as watching several clips of it on Youtube.com, I think I may have to reconsider my previous opinions.

            I never thought of killing animals for food as a way of domination or specieism. I always just felt that we aren’t very different from other animals. We kill for our food just as any other carnivore; we just happen to do so in a much more sophisticated (at least I thought) way. We can’t help the fact that we are on top of the food chain. Yet, now I realize that “it is the human earthling (us) who tends to dominate the earth, often times treating other fellow earthlings and living beings as mere objects.”[2] I simply could not believe some of the things I read and saw over the past hour. How did it come to this? The truth of the matter is “change is inevitable. Either we make it ourselves, or we will be forced to make it by Nature itself.”[3] Unfortunately, I am pretty sure our society is at a point of stubbornness.

            There are many reasons that this method of slaughter, however wrong, will continue. For one, when it comes down to it, these processes are efficient. As with nearly every other industry in the world today, the food business is about making money. I don’t think business owners particularly enjoy the fact that they inhumanely kill animals, but they certainly have no problem turning a blind eye if it nets them a greater profit. They will always choose the least expensive way to produce their product, regardless of how that end is reached.

          SADLY, THE DOLLAR IS VALUED MORESO THAN AN ANIMALS COMFORT OR LIFE, AT LEAST BY THOSE WHO CONTROL THEIR FATE.

  Another reason is that consumers flat out “don’t really want to know”.[4] I certainly didn’t. It is too easy, and burgers are too tasty, for most people to concern themselves with how that piece of meat came to be on their plate. There is an overwhelming attitude of “don’t tell me, you’ll spoil my dinner.” [5] We ignore for our own convenience, just as we kill for our own convenience. This is why “the architecture of slaughter is opaque, designed in the interest of denial, to insure that we will not see even if we wanted to look (which we don’t).”[6]

          AND TASTY, APPARENTLY.

  One final encompassing way of thinking that is the cause of such cruelty is that animals are often viewed as objects—things. To so many, they aren’t much different from a rock or any other part of nature. When people think of equality, they tend to think in terms of only our species, rather than us with other “earthlings.” We hunt them, nowadays more for “game” and wall decorations than for actual food. Growing up where I did, hunting was a very popular hobby among my peers, and one that I really despise. I just don’t get how murdering a defenseless animal with a fucking high tech rifle that practically does all the work can amount to any sense of accomplishment, pride, or satisfaction. In all honesty, it is not only inhumane, but the deck is stacked beyond belief as well. While these “hunters” try and defend their idea of fun, “there is no denying it, if hunting is a sport, it is a bloodsport.”[7]

IN MY OPINION, HUNTING ONLY PROVES THAT ONE HAS A LONGING TO FEEL BADASS OR DOMINANT, WHICH DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE DEATH OF AN ANIMAL.

 Also, when you truly look at it, owning a pet is not too far off from owning a slave. Granted the animal is cared for, and not meat to do work, but it is meant to serve a purpose, and not given a choice about whether it wants to fulfill that purpose. They are obtained in to provide one with companionship and entertainment. It’s like buying a friend, or a DVD. Thus, the question must be asked: “Is our keeping companion animals in their best interest, or are we exploiting them.” [8]I believe this stems from our difficulty to empathize with animals, particularly those that we eat. Personally, I can’t read a cow. I don’t know what indications it gives for how it feels, nor do I know what it would be like to walk a day in its hooves. Can you blame our inability for not empathizing with these animals though? Do people even want to? Understanding a creature is very difficult, especially when we can’t really communicate with them. Our world is no Wonderland. Our animals don’t ask us self-discovery questions such as “who are you?”[9], they don’t tell us “dry stories”, they don’t say a word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmiH27KDpzE&feature=related    

        THIS SCENE FROM NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN PUTS A HUMAN IN THE SHOES OF A COW THAT IS ABOUT TO BE SLAUGHTERED. 

As long as these feelings continue to be that of the majority, these conditions will not change. “These supremacist notions take a long time to erode.”[10] It is a sad truth, but the truth no less. As for me, I am going to go eat a salad now.

---

[1] Earthlings, by Shaun Monson, X729

[2] Earthlings, by Shaun Monson, X701

[3] Earthlings, by Shaun Monson, X730

[4] Earthlings, by Shaun Monson, X707

[5] Earthlings, by Shaun Monson, X729

[6] Earthlings, by Shaun Monson, X714

[7] Earthlings, by Shaun Monson, X722

[8] Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll, 48.

[9] Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll, 30.

[10] “When Human Rights Extend to Nonhumans,” by Donald G. Mcneil Jr., X732